Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

Garments only worn in the Temple?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ginger Snaps said:

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. 

One of the consequences of not being righteous enough to hold a current TR is you also have to wear stinky old garments.   Hopefully that will motivate people to repent enough to become worthy to purchase new ones.  😆

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

Yeah - we need to avoid the garment turning that shade of “high priest yellow” which is a hue somewhere between eggshell and canary.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

One of the consequences of not being righteous enough to hold a current TR is you also have to wear stinky old garments.

As I've pointed out above -- and as others have likewise noted -- the Church's system knows if you're endowed or not. If you are, you can simply order online or provide your MRN if purchasing in person. Your recommend needn't be current.

But, seriously, why are your garments stinky? Don't you wash them?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Yeah - we need to avoid the garment turning that shade of “high priest yellow” which is a hue somewhere between eggshell and canary.

I'm a high priest, but I've never had that problem anywhere execept for the armpits. I spray those with distilled vinegar before washing, in addition to using an oxygen bleach and drying them in the sun whenever it's not raining. Easy peasy.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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.

No, I beg to differ, your point was that people didn't have intercourse with the garment on I thought, and so you can see that it was possible.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


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

No, I beg to differ, your point was that people didn't have intercourse with the garment on I thought, and so you can see that it was possible.

No, my point is that people can't have intercourse with the garment on. I don't care what may or may not have been possible in the past. As I noted, in the past all kinds of people would have been engaging in intercourse with their underclothing in place simply because that's how life worked.* We haven't lived in that world for a long time.

-----

* 'As clothing became more complex, undergarments (when they were used) were simple and usually bottomless so sexual intercourse was easy to do when fully clothed (Marissa Rhodes, 'Underwear: A History of Intimate Apparel').

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No, my point is that people can't have intercourse with the garment on. I don't care what may or may not have been possible in the past. As I noted, in the past all kinds of people would have been engaging in intercourse with their underclothing in place simply because that's how life worked. We haven't lived in that world for a long time.

Well they have been around as recently as a couple of years ago haven't they? So therefore many still own a pair.https://www.lds.org/church/news/beehive-clothing-to-discontinue-select-garment-styles?lang=eng

Discontinuing styles

Beehive Clothing to Discontinue Select Garment Styles

  • 5 JULY 2017

Women’s

  • Dri Lux top and bottom
  • DriSilque flare-leg one-piece
  • DriSilque snug-leg one piece (petite and tall statures)

Men’s

  • Cotton-poly midcalf bottom
  • Cotton-poly zipper-front one-piece
  • Nylon mesh one-piece
  • Corban one-piece (tall stature)
Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well they have been around as recently as a couple of years ago haven't they?

And non-Latter-day Saints can still buy union suits with seat flaps and full-body button plackets. So theoretically those people could also be having intercourse with their underwear on. When I was studying in America, I had a housemate who wore a red union suit year-round. But that's not common behaviour, is it? I'd be willing to bet money I don't have that the garments bought and worn by over 99 per cent of all Latter-day Saints in the world do not allow for sexual intercourse to occur whilst wearing them. And that has been the case for as long as I've been a member of the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/21/2019 at 2:11 PM, rpn said:

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.

Garments are from Nauvoo, not Kirtland. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

When I exercise or am going to be active for a time I sometimes wear conventional underwear underneath my garments for support. I think this is what they meant. I used to do it almost every day but I sadly have a more sedentary life now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This could cause an accident!

Possibly. I also knew someone who kept one arm in a sleeve of a garment and then put the new one on the other arm so it was never entirely off when changing them. Not sire how that stiff propagated but it is a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I also knew someone who kept one arm in a sleeve of a garment and then put the new one on the other arm so it was never entirely off when changing them.

Photos or I'm calling shenanigans.

I know there are some loonies in the Church, but I highly doubt any of them are also acrobats or contortionists.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/21/2019 at 6:55 PM, 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.

Frankly, that's ridiculous. As if reproduction required Victoria's Secret to succeed (i.e sexy underwear).  We are not bower birds.  Didn't church members used to have enormous families, even without plural marriage and while wearing neck to ankle garments?

Or are you just attempting comedy?  If so, my advice is don't quit your day job.

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't the Godmakers video show an elderly woman discussing how she had to keep the garment on while washing?  That's the only time I've heard that claim

I found out last summer that all garments that are tried on for size at Deseret Books are destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Since I am late to the discussion, I just wanted to add a couple of things that get back to the question in the OP -

It is hard to talk about the idea of garments being worn in Joseph's day. Prior to the dedication of the Nauvoo Temple, only around 100 individuals had been endowed with the Nauvoo endowment. So out of all of them members of the Church in the mid 1840s, only 100 had received garments. And when they received their garments, the marks were cut into them during the rite. So they were personal. And we don't know a lot about their understanding of when to wear them.

During the exodus from Nauvoo, the temple was dedicated, and for the next few months, roughly 5400 people were endowed. This was done in a hurry - and those who were endowed did not receive their own personal garments. In fact, there was a crew that laundered the temple garments every night in preparation for the next days participants (there is an entry in the HoC about this from that time period). They did not have the time or resources to produce unique garments for all of these people, and consequently the marks weren't added during the rite, and the garments were re-used. And this means that until the saints were out west and somewhat established, the only time that the vast majority of endowed members had ever worn the garment was once, during their endowment. This wasn't by choice or by policy or design, but happened out of necessity.

This history though leads to a change in 1927 (documented in the essay linked much earlier). A new, activity friendlier design for the garment was created - but - it was for use outside the temple only. Inside the temple, patrons were required to wear the older style. This separation of the two types lasts until 1975 (although the ways in which the policy was implemented changed a bit over time IIRC). At any rate, the idea of having a different garment for the temple from the ones worn routinely outside the temple probably contributes to the idea in the OP question.

So we have this problem that it is very difficult to discuss this question in terms of Joseph's day. The practices and beliefs of church members would come not from what happens in Nauvoo so much as what we see coming out of the endowment houses and later temples in Utah. And so while I could say with some certainty that most of the endowed members of the Church in the late 1840s had only ever worn the garment in the Temple, this was not by design or intention.

Thank you.  Exactly what I said, but more succinct.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I've pointed out above -- and as others have likewise noted -- the Church's system knows if you're endowed or not. If you are, you can simply order online or provide your MRN if purchasing in person. Your recommend needn't be current.

But, seriously, why are your garments stinky? Don't you wash them?

I'm somewhat joking, but seriously the rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  I actually don't have a current TR and I was able to order them online just fine a few months back.  However, there is note on the screen that says this:

Quote

You must have a current temple recommend to view Ceremonial Clothing.  If you feel that there is an error with your account, please confirm with your unit clerk that your membership record is up to date.  If you have further questions, please contact Customer Support.

Even this seems a little excessive to me.  I'm not sure who puts there rules in place.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Photos or I'm calling shenanigans.

I know there are some loonies in the Church, but I highly doubt any of them are also acrobats or contortionists.

I'm no acrobat or contortionist by any means, but it really wouldn't be difficult for me to keep one arm in while putting in my other arm into another set and the same for the legs. 

I've heard of similar things done with regular clothing. My daughter has even changed her shirt a couple of times and not exposed herself while we were driving from one place to another she needed to get into quickly. 

Doing the garment thing is something I would never think of doing and I find it totally unnecessary, but I really don't see it as difficult. 

I do wonder if people who do it ever swim.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm somewhat joking, but seriously the rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  I actually don't have a current TR and I was able to order them online just fine a few months back.  However, there is note on the screen that says this:

Even this seems a little excessive to me.  I'm not sure who puts there rules in place.  

Considering there is a video that is made specifically for those who have not been to the temple and are likely not members that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Temple clothing

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

"You must have a current temple recommend to view Ceremonial Clothing.  If you feel that there is an error with your account, please confirm with your unit clerk that your membership record is up to date.  If you have further questions, please contact Customer Support."

Even this seems a little excessive to me.  I'm not sure who puts there rules in place.  

The part in bold has always puzzled me a bit when it comes to funeral viewings.  One has to have a recommend to dress the deceased (I understand that), but then they are on full display at the viewing for all to see (for all ages, nonmembers and unendowed members).  The ceremonial clothing are definitely viewed by all (and also how they are worn).

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Rain said:

Considering there is a video that is made specifically for those who have not been to the temple and are likely not members that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Temple clothing

Yes, great point, especially after they released that video.  Probably this is a example of where the old policies don't match the newer practical messaging that the church is trying to do.  You'd think someone that works for the church would see the disconnect.  

Share this post


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

The part in bold has always puzzled me a bit when it comes to funeral viewings.  One has to have a recommend to dress the deceased (I understand that), but then they are on full display at the viewing for all to see (for all ages, nonmembers and unendowed members).  The ceremonial clothing are definitely viewed by all.

Yes, very interesting.  It makes me think about my wish that the church would have started allowing non-members and members who didn't have active TRs to attend sealing ceremonies inside the temple.  In some ways I think that would have been masterful stroke of genius for the church, and much better than the recent change made to marriage ceremonies.  

It could have served the purpose of making family members feel included and connected by inviting them inside the temple to participate in a ceremony that members feel is the crowning and most important part of the marriage union.  It would also give them access to see the beauty of these rituals and perhaps even increase their interest in the church for non-members and for those who don't hold a TR today.  It could have been a boon to the church overall. 

The only thing that it would hurt is for members who hold a particular view about what it means to be personally worthy and pure and by extension how that impacts the temple.  But from my perspective, that would be a positive step in the right direction as well, because I think a lot of the ideas around purity and worthiness are messed up in the church today and need to be relaxed and those paradigms could change to be more healthy for individuals and for our culture.  

So from my perspective, inviting others into the temple, letting them see the ceremonial clothing in a sealing, and being a part of that process is an inspired idea.  Too bad President Nelson didn't wake up from his sleep and kick his wife out of the room to write down this idea.  It could have been really innovative, instead of just finally giving in to the changes many people have been asking about for years.  

Edited by hope_for_things
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, very interesting.  It makes me think about my wish that the church would have started allowing non-members and members who didn't have active TRs to attend sealing ceremonies inside the temple.  In some ways I think that would have been masterful stroke of genius for the church, and much better than the recent change made to marriage ceremonies.  

It could have served the purpose of making family members feel included and connected by inviting them inside the temple to participate in a ceremony that members feel is the crowning and most important part of the marriage union.  It would also give them access to see the beauty of these rituals and perhaps even increase their interest in the church for non-members and for those who don't hold a TR today.  It could have been a boon to the church overall. 

The only thing that it would hurt is for members who hold a particular view about what it means to be personally worthy and pure and by extension how that impacts the temple.  But from my perspective, that would be a positive step in the right direction as well, because I think a lot of the ideas around purity and worthiness are messed up in the church today and need to be relaxed and those paradigms could change to be more healthy for individuals and for our culture.  

So from my perspective, inviting others into the temple, letting them see the ceremonial clothing in a sealing, and being a part of that process is an inspired idea.  Too bad President Nelson didn't wake up from his sleep and kick his wife out of the room to write down this idea.  It could have been really innovative, instead of just finally giving in to the changes many people have been asking about for years.  

The bolded is only true if God agrees with your perspective.  If He doesn't, then doing so would cause more harm than good.  Innovation is useless and could even be harmful if God doesn't condone it.  God's perspective is the only one that matters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Since I am late to the discussion, I just wanted to add a couple of things that get back to the question in the OP -

It is hard to talk about the idea of garments being worn in Joseph's day. Prior to the dedication of the Nauvoo Temple, only around 100 individuals had been endowed with the Nauvoo endowment. So out of all of them members of the Church in the mid 1840s, only 100 had received garments. And when they received their garments, the marks were cut into them during the rite. So they were personal. And we don't know a lot about their understanding of when to wear them.

During the exodus from Nauvoo, the temple was dedicated, and for the next few months, roughly 5400 people were endowed. This was done in a hurry - and those who were endowed did not receive their own personal garments. In fact, there was a crew that laundered the temple garments every night in preparation for the next days participants (there is an entry in the HoC about this from that time period). They did not have the time or resources to produce unique garments for all of these people, and consequently the marks weren't added during the rite, and the garments were re-used. And this means that until the saints were out west and somewhat established, the only time that the vast majority of endowed members had ever worn the garment was once, during their endowment. This wasn't by choice or by policy or design, but happened out of necessity.

This history though leads to a change in 1927 (documented in the essay linked much earlier). A new, activity friendlier design for the garment was created - but - it was for use outside the temple only. Inside the temple, patrons were required to wear the older style. This separation of the two types lasts until 1975 (although the ways in which the policy was implemented changed a bit over time IIRC). At any rate, the idea of having a different garment for the temple from the ones worn routinely outside the temple probably contributes to the idea in the OP question.

So we have this problem that it is very difficult to discuss this question in terms of Joseph's day. The practices and beliefs of church members would come not from what happens in Nauvoo so much as what we see coming out of the endowment houses and later temples in Utah. And so while I could say with some certainty that most of the endowed members of the Church in the late 1840s had only ever worn the garment in the Temple, this was not by design or intention.

well, my mind has been blown to smithereens! it's good!!!! I wonder if during pre 1927 era and post Nauvoo period they wore Garments or how that all was

edit-reading the dialogue article😊

Edited by Duncan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Rain said:

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.

 

Abuse is much worse when it is done by the hands of those who are supposedly "called by God".  Being raped by a stranger, vs. being being raped - and videotaped - and the video posted online - by someone in the bishopric wearing garments who was supposed to be a protector.  ... then watching everyone in the congregation raise their hands to support this rapist pedophile in their leadership position...  and covenant to support their leaders as part of the TR interview?  Years and years and years - child after child after child - all videotaped... he is in jail now for the rest of his life without parole, but it was not the church who put him there.  The church supported him.  When his first temple marriage went south, the church condemned his first wife rather than him.  He was sealed to a second unsuspecting victim - did the church warn her? stop the wedding?  No - they sealed another victim to him, and gave him leadership callings.  The church knew - knew what ended his first marriage, he went to church addiction recovery groups - the church knew, and enabled him, and gave him more than a temple recommend and garments to wear, they put him in leadership positions, with children, within the bishopric.  

 

In another situation - after our bishop issues a TR to another person who should NOT have had a TR (the TR was revoked after I confronted them both)  - the bishop is not a judge, does not discipline - is not led by the spirit - but instead enables abuse to continue and sanctifies it - calls it holy.  This is worse than abuse.  

 

The temple, and everything surrounding the temple, is not a holy place to me.  It is a building filled with lies, pedophiles, adultery, covenants of polygamy and abuse.

Edited by changed

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...