Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

Garments only worn in the Temple?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I’m pretty sure they just need your membership number. They probably ask for a TR to get your number off of it. 

Sounds like the cashier might have misunderstood why they ask for the TR in my case.  Good to know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, alter idem said:

 Best not to ask.

Ha ha, perhaps.  But back then I was 19 years and knew ZERO of what I know and understand now.  So one asks, especially after hearing something like "at all times" and you are a 19 year old hours away from your wedding night, it's pretty much top of mind. 😜

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, not at first.

There are records of robes being shared and I might be mistaken but I vaguely recall garments being laundered and reused between sessions too.  I'll try and find it.

Additionally the usage of the marks has varied.  The marks were always cut, never embroidered in the early days.  At one point this was done as part of the ceremony.  At another point the marks were cut into certain articles of clothing other than the garments.

That said, I'm not convinced that wearing them all the time started under Brigham.  Based on accounts of the anointed quorum and Willard Richards at Carthage I think the garment rules as practiced in Utah were being established in Joseph's lifetime, even if they weren't firm.

That's all very interesting.  Thanks!!!

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mnn727 said:

For sure, I'm grateful to be of average height.  Although, it seems like the Big & Tall clothes are always on the clearance racks at the stores I go to.  You probably can find some killer deals if you're a savvy shopper, at least on some of the items.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

So it appears that ALL who lived polygamy did wear the garments....but that there were a few who were initiated into the anointed quorum (wore garments) who did not live polygamy or lived it later (like Hyrum)?

I think then it makes sense that some may have feared others seeing them wearing garments if they were trying to keep their polygamy a secret.  Even if some may have stated they didn't fear that, I'd imagine many did.  That's most likely where the belief (by some) originated that it was the polygamists who wore the garments in the early days of the church.  Interesting...thanks!

Yes, I agree with you there.  It was interesting reading about how Michael Quinn believes that they re-initiated all the original anointed quorum members in May of 1843.  I wish we had more information about all of these years, with everything being so secret.  I think we're still trying to piece together how everything was connected, and the impact of the different events, like the John C. Bennett issues, and even the timeline around Hyrum Smith opposing polygamy and then embracing it later.  I wonder how accurate Brigham Young's later recollection on how he sold Hyrum on the idea of polygamy was?  Its all fascinating, and I hope more journals come to light in the future.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Duncan said:

What is BVD, I know what Hanes are but can you get Hanes garments?

BVD and Hanes are makers of underwear (regular underwear, NOT Garments)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Buy the Tall tops, they never come untucked. I always have a 2 week supply and they almost never wear out. I've been endowed 26 years and I think I have ordered tops 3 times. Try doing that with BVD or Hanes.

I think I may have seen you in the gym locker room...

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For sure, I'm grateful to be of average height.  Although, it seems like the Big & Tall clothes are always on the clearance racks at the stores I go to.  You probably can find some killer deals if you're a savvy shopper, at least on some of the items.  

I have not been able to clothes shop at "regular stores" since I was about 14 or 15  - and even then it was in Mens and not in Boys

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

It has been awhile, but last time I went in person to the Orem store, mine wasn't current and they wouldn't let me buy.  I never tried buying online without it being current.

Oh, interesting. I almost always buy online because I don’t live close to a store, but the last time I bought some in person I don’t recall being asked for it. I’ve never tried to buy without having a current TR, but people can be without a TR for a myriad of reasons yet still be under covenant to wear the garment.  I just always figured they used your membership number to make sure you’ve been endowed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

There seems to be in many faiths those who believe that more is better. Teach chastity; celibacy is better. Teach garment wearing; never take it off. Teach word of wisdom; never consume caffeine. Etc...

The Buddhist concept of “middle way” needs to be better understood and practiced.

I like the Spirit way instead - you do what the Spirit says to you personally.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Rain said:

I like the Spirit way instead - you do what the Spirit says to you personally.

Sure thing. But maybe we don’t need to teach others to do what the spirit tells us individuals to do.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, changed said:

Interesting.  There is a lot of pain surrounding the temple and garments for me - they were not a protection to me or my family (who were abused by those with temple recommends, and those wearing garments).  Garments are supposed to represent fidelity, but they now represent abuse to me because of the people I had to deal with who wore them.  

I do wear modest clothing, but when it comes to our body, I think we will be judged more on the services and work we did than the clothing that we wore.

"I don't want to drive up to the pearly gates in a shiny sports car, wearing beautifully, tailored clothes, my hair expertly coiffed, and with long, perfectly manicured fingernails. I want to drive up in a station wagon that has mud on the wheels from taking kids to scout camp. I want to be there with grass stains on my shoes from mowing Sisters Schenk's lawn. I want to be there with a smudge of peanut butter on my shirt from making sandwiches for a sick neighbors children. I want to be there with a little dirt under my fingernails from helping to weed someone's garden. I want to be there with children's sticky kisses on my cheeks and the tears of a friend on my shoulder. I want the Lord to know I was really here and that I really lived." -Marjorie Hinckley

I group religious clothing into the same category as religious statues, buildings, or other tangible materialistic symbolic artifacts.  I appreciate that the LDS church does not use rosary beads or statues or crosses etc.  While such objects can be valuable reminders they can easily turn into idolatrous distractions from the intangible goals. 

I'm really not being snarky here. Hoping I can be sensitive because it sounds like you and your loved ones have gone through some awful things. I'm also not trying to change your mind.

Having never had to deal with this I'm just wondering - there are many very good non abusive people who wear garments. There were probably some other similarities between those who abused you and yours. There are many unendowed members and non members who abuse. 

Do you know why you have such strong feelings about garments and temple recommends being associated with abusers verses other similarities?

If you don't want to discuss it or discuss it here. I'm just interested in how people work, but this may just be too insensitive of me. Sorry if it is.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, alter idem said:

It's not uncommon for these notions to be very hard to root out.  It can be a very small percentage who believe this stuff, but it still gets disseminated.  Example is caffeine.  We were NEVER told that caffeine was prohibited by the word of wisdom, but how many of us have had instances were we were told not to drink it by well-meaning members and even leaders at various times--until the church HAD to say something.  It only takes a small, but stubbornly persistent group to keep something like this alive.  The notion that the garment must be worn all the times, no exceptions, is one of those notions, so I'm not surprised they had to issue a statement in 1968.

That more millenials seem to have picked up this notion is disconcerting and maybe the church will have to re-issue that 1968 statement--though it may not do any good for some zealots.  Some people have their own extreme positions which they don't wish to give up and to be honest, they have that right--we all have a right to do as we please.  They just need to stop trying to pull others into their dysfunction, IMO.

Well, sort of. My dad was told in a solemn assembly just for priesthood holders in the temple by one of the prophets/12 that it was included 40 or so years ago. I didn't find this out till a few years ago and when it did it REALLY bugged me because why tell just a few?

There is a reason it got such a strong hold even though we couldn't find things in conference etc about it. I think this is why. 

So I think the only ones under that obligation are those that have felt by the Spirit they should not consume it, making sure they do not teach that everyone else should live that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, changed said:

I do not remember covenanting to wear the garment?  There are instructions and commandments, and then there are covenants.  I would place g's into the "instructions" category, I believe everyone is "instructed" to wear it.  

What do you think would constitute breaking that instruction?  I assume everyone takes off their g's - they are not going against that instruction every time they get dressed, right?  

I would agree. I first heard Happy Jack say something about it a few years ago. Since then I have tried to figure out anywhere it might be. At my last temple reccomend interview I even asked where that was when asked the question, but he didn't know.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For sure, I'm grateful to be of average height.  Although, it seems like the Big & Tall clothes are always on the clearance racks at the stores I go to.  You probably can find some killer deals if you're a savvy shopper, at least on some of the items.  

I'm a very savvy shopper. My husband has joked the police may show up at my door because I got something for too low of a price. 

He is 6'6 and needs 3x shirts because his shoulders are broad as well. I've looked at those clearance racks often and rarely find something that works for him. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I agree with you there.  It was interesting reading about how Michael Quinn believes that they re-initiated all the original anointed quorum members in May of 1843.  I wish we had more information about all of these years, with everything being so secret.

I think Quinn is right on that.  Brigham had very specific ideas about performing ordinances in the correct times and places.  He believed the second anointing required a full temple, so very few were performed between the leaving of Nauvoo in 1845/6 and the dedication of the St. George Temple in the 1870s.  Some, but few and far between.  He also taught restrictions on how many could be performed on any given day, where law of Adoption sealings could be done, and what temple ordinances could be done outside of temples.

It makes perfect sense that he would have anointed quorum members repeat ordinances once the temple became available.

Quote

I think we're still trying to piece together how everything was connected, and the impact of the different events, like the John C. Bennett issues, and even the timeline around Hyrum Smith opposing polygamy and then embracing it later.  I wonder how accurate Brigham Young's later recollection on how he sold Hyrum on the idea of polygamy was?  Its all fascinating, and I hope more journals come to light in the future.   

This harkens back to the posts on polygamy as a requirement.  Hyrum and Emma are actually two that some historians believe were restricted from receiving temple ordinances from Joseph until they accepted polygamy (temporarily in Emma's case).  That's why Emma wasn't Joseph's first eternal companion despite being his first wife.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Duncan said:

I tried a larger size for the tops but then it's like I look like i'm kifing tomatoes or something ...

I had to Google 'kifing'. Clearly my English vocabulary is not as good as I'd presumed ...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Maidservant said:

But her way of speaking made it sound as if leaving them on during intimacy was still an option or practice that was 'on the table' or taking place for some. 

As a never-married male, I've tried to avoid this whole conversation, but I seriously don't get it. I've seen enough women's garments to know that they don't have flys or anything similar. Intercourse whilst wearing garments is therefore a physical impossibility. Why is no one pointing this out?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You’re a brave man to openly brag about how seldom you buy new underwear!

As I noted above, my last lot of garments lasted me seven years before getting any holes. That comes out to 255.5 wears each. I'm not brave; I'm proud! And they were nearly as white when I destroyed them as the day they came out of the packet. I use oxygen bleach and dry them outside in the sun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Duncan said:

What is BVD ...?

Just don't be kifing any BVDs, mate!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Just don't be kifing any BVDs, mate!

hahahahha! no way Jose!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As a never-married male, I've tried to avoid this whole conversation, but I seriously don't get it. I've seen enough women's garments to know that they don't have flys or anything similar. Intercourse whilst wearing garments is therefore a physical impossibility. Why is no one pointing this out?

It wasn't in my grandma's day. I remember seeing them, there was just an opening from the front down by the crotch to the back of the behind. Or I'm dreaming and this is not so, but I swear I saw this. It had an overlap.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It wasn't in my grandma's day.

I have no idea how old your grandma was, but not many decades ago, many people (and not exclusively Latter-day Saint people) only changed out of their underwear on occasion. But we don't live in your grandma's day. That's my point.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It wasn't in my grandma's day. I remember seeing them, there was just an opening from the front down by the crotch to the back of the behind. Or I'm dreaming and this is not so, but I swear I saw this. It had an overlap.

You're not dreaming.  The (mostly) original garment looked like that and was the only one until the mid 20's, optional until the mid 20th century, and still worn in temples until the late 70s when it ended.

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...