Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

Garments only worn in the Temple?

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour 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?

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.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour 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?

From what I know, garments were long, as in head to toe types of garments. They have undergone so many changes, fabrics, styles, etc. Also, we don’t wear all out Temple clothing, except in the Temple, so garments, or undergarments are only a small part of it all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Frankly, the only argument I can see that would precipitate such a change is that it would increase the birthrate in the church, which is sorely needed.

While there is a large grain of truth in your quip here, the argument that might hold sway is that it would be an accommodation that would appeal even more to younger generations. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Frankly, the only argument I can see that would precipitate such a change is that it would increase the birthrate in the church, which is sorely needed.

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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

In the early days of garments, they were worn only in the temple.  Because it was rare for people to bath more than once a week, they also bathed when they arrived in the temple and  then put garments on (when they started doing washing and anointing --- did you know that Black Elijah Able was not just ordained an elder, but also received the washing and anointing: he was in Cinncinati when endowments began and then JS died --- and then later endowments).   I'd imagine that people shared what garments there were too, as it was certainly not as easy then to make/preserve white clothes as it might be now (and it isn't always easy today either), and there weren't a lot of people sewing them either.

I am not one, though who thinks that garments are needlessly worn throughout a life, outside of the temple.   They do make it easy to remember covenants.

I would imagine though in our worldwide church, that affording and wearing garments and answering the TR questions about garments as a condition of TR though, does limit temple attendance among faithful members in many places.   So eliminating that as a condition of Temple attendance in the TR interview would make some sense.

Edited by rpn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

While there is a large grain of truth in your quip here, the argument that might hold sway is that it would be an accommodation that would appeal even more to younger generations. 

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.  

 IMG_1350.thumb.JPG.6a28ab56623b4679a6dd42c9a7d83ae1.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I wonder if some assumed the question meant any physical sexual behaviour as opposed to intercourse...because with two piece I am not seeing how that is possible not to remove at least half.  Maybe I lack imagination in this.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder if some assumed the question meant any physical sexual behaviour as opposed to intercourse...because with two piece I am not seeing how that is possible not to remove at least half.  Maybe I lack imagination in this.

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?  :lol:  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes 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.  

I noticed that too but that is the outlier. In nearly all other questions, the Gen X & Millennials expressed more willingness to remove them. So I could see this as being an accommodation for them as some of the other recent changes seem to be. I see current leadership making changes to make being Mormon easier and I do not believe that portends well for our unique identity or even our membership numbers, in the long run.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Frankly, the only argument I can see that would precipitate such a change is that it would increase the birthrate in the church, which is sorely needed.

Are you sure that you are not masquerading as The Nehor?  8)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 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.

Not just undergarments, but even temple robes used to be worn by Saints in their own ward buildings when doing the Prayer Circle.  They even had lockers specially for that activity.  I believe that it was done regularly as recently as the 1950s.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I noticed that too but that is the outlier. In nearly all other questions, the Gen X & Millennials expressed more willingness to remove them. So I could see this as being an accommodation for them as some of the other recent changes seem to be. I see current leadership making changes to make being Mormon easier and I do not believe that portends well for our unique identity or even our membership numbers, in the long run.

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?  

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 IMG_1350.thumb.JPG.6a28ab56623b4679a6dd42c9a7d83ae1.JPG

I really have a hard time believing some of those numbers.

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I noticed that too but that is the outlier. In nearly all other questions, the Gen X & Millennials expressed more willingness to remove them. So I could see this as being an accommodation for them as some of the other recent changes seem to be. I see current leadership making changes to make being Mormon easier and I do not believe that portends well for our unique identity or even our membership numbers, in the long run.

Sex was one where boomers had a higher percentage. Going to the doctor was another. My total guess at why is that for the older generation many may not feel spiritual during relations and feel it would feel unworthy to wear garments then. And for doctors I can see it being a matter of sharing the sacredness of garments with people who are not endowed.

Share this post


Link to post
4 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.  

A lot of Jews likewise prefer not to wear their daily holy garments, such as tallit qatan with tzitzit (undershirt with tassels hanging out), in addition to the visible yarmulke (kippa) for men.  They are not secret in any way, and are a constant reminder of one's Jewishness.

Talitnia Cotton Tallit Katan Kosher with tzitzit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

noticed that too but that is the outlier. In nearly all other questions, the Gen X & Millennials expressed more willingness to remove them

Which would seem to indicate a misunderstanding of the question.

And not much thinking it through...only a third thought it appropriate to remove for medical reasons, but I doubt any would wear them if undergoing surgery.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To wear garments only in the Temple would defeat the purpose of wearing garments, if the purpose of garments is to give us a reminder outside the Temple of the covenants we make inside the Temple. 

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?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes 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?  

I think I remember Mark E Peterson talking about never taking off your garments even during sex but that was a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Rain said:

I really have a hard time believing some of those numbers.

Sex was one where boomers had a higher percentage. Going to the doctor was another. My total guess at why is that for the older generation many may not feel spiritual during relations and feel it would feel unworthy to wear garments then. And for doctors I can see it being a matter of sharing the sacredness of garments with people who are not endowed.

They've done a very nice job making their survey results publicly available and open to further analysis in case you're interested into digging deeper.  

https://thenextmormons.org/

I know some people have speculated that the lower numbers for Millenials on the sex question are because many of them may be single still and not have any sexual experiences yet, but that doesn't explain the Gen X phenomenon as most of them would be older.  The doctor results are strange as well.  I'm surprised at the results of the exercise answer as well, considering isn't that a comment they specifically mention at the temple recommend interview that you can remove them for certain activities.  Who would want to be sweating up a storm running a marathon or playing a basketball game wearing garments?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think I remember Mark E Peterson talking about never taking off your garments even during sex but that was a long time ago.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...