The Function Of Garments

[maklelan]

Your thoughts?

[blackstrap]

I prefer an "and" rather than an "or" .

[volgadon]

A bit of both, but mainly B, they protect insofar as they serve as a reminder of our covenants.

[Gohan]

I go with number two, although the first can be true in some rare incidences.

[bluebell]

I also go with more of an 'and' than an 'or'. I don't believe they are supernatural in that you can't be harmed while you wear them or something like that, but I do believe that they can be a source of physical protection under special circumstances dictated by God.

[Kenngo1969]

I also go with more of an 'and' than an 'or'. I don't believe they are supernatural in that you can't be harmed while you wear them or something like that, but I do believe that they can be a source of physical protection under special circumstances dictated by God.

Ditto.

[maklelan]

Thanks for the responses so far. I'm of the opinion that they are a symbol meant to remind us of our covenants, and that they protect is insofar as they serve as a reminder and a symbol. I'm skeptical of most stories about people's garments saving them from injury. If I accept as accurate any of the stories about garments not being harmed, or protecting the wearer, I would probably be inclined to interpret it as a divine sign of the power of the temple covenants, not as a physical indication that the garment was imbued with any supernatural power, or was itself the saving factor. I understand the garments as an outward sign of an inward commitment, and such a miracle would, for me, be an even stronger outward sign of the power of that inward commitment.

Edited January 30, 2012 by maklelan

[Macabus]

I've had some unexplainable protection from my garments, but I think the role as a reminder and a symbol is the primary purpose. I feel any protection is derived from keeping covenants and not magical fabric.

[Grundelwalken]

Thanks for the responses so far. I'm of the opinion that they are a symbol meant to remind us of our covenants, and that the protect is insofar as they serve as a reminder and a symbol. I'm skeptical of most stories about people's garments saving them from injury. If I accept as accurate any of the stories about garments not being harmed, or protecting the wearer, I would probably be inclined to interpret it as a divine sign of the power of the temple covenants, not as a physical indication that the garment was imbued with any supernatural power, or was itself the saving factor. I understand the garments as an outward sign of an inward commitment, and such a miracle would, for me, be an even stronger outward sign of the power of that inward commitment.

The power comes as the covenant is kept. The garment has no special power in and of itself.

[Palerider]

I'm aware of what the church says is the purpose of the garment, but I now see it much more as a "totem":

World English dictionary:

1.

(in some societies, esp among North American Indians) an object, species of animal or plant, or natural phenomenon symbolizing a clan, family, etc, often having ritual associations

Thus it represents to me a semi covert symbol (noted by some who have eyes to see, missed by others) that one is a member of the exclusive family,,,,,,,the club....where nearly automatic trust is granted. The establishment of immediate kinship without the normal periods of "getting to know you". Familiarity without the usual effort.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Palerider

[BCSpace]

I think God could give you a sign or a miracle by physically protecting the area covered by the garment but that's not what it's for and they have no supernatural or magical powers. I think there are many LDS who've been in accidents or injured in war for example, who will testify they don't. Are they all too unrighteous for physical protection? I doubt it.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for the responses so far. I'm of the opinion that they are a symbol meant to remind us of our covenants, and that they protect is insofar as they serve as a reminder and a symbol. I'm skeptical of most stories about people's garments saving them from injury. If I accept as accurate any of the stories about garments not being harmed, or protecting the wearer, I would probably be inclined to interpret it as a divine sign of the power of the temple covenants, not as a physical indication that the garment was imbued with any supernatural power, or was itself the saving factor. I understand the garments as an outward sign of an inward commitment, and such a miracle would, for me, be an even stronger outward sign of the power of that inward commitment.

I could not have said it better myself. Thank you for speaking on my behalf.

[why me]

One is less likely to commit a sexual sin if one has garments on. In that they serve as a reminder of chasity. However, in other ways, they may be forgotten during the day as the busy life takes over. Also, since it is required, it can serve as a reminder that one is a member of Christ's church.

[ebeddoulos]

I believe that "Garments protect only insofar as they serve as a reminder of our covenants." Now with that said, let me tell you a curious story.

In Star Valley Wyoming there used to be a sawmill called Star Studs which manufactured 2x4s and 2x6s. I got a job there "tailing the scragg". This was a large saw which made the initial cuts through the logs. My job consisted of toppling and separating the large cants and making sure they were on the rollers headed toward the smaller saws which cut them into the smaller sizes. After being in use for a while, the scragg would build up a collection of scrap wood and sawdust which hindered its operation. The sawyer would shut off the saw. I would fold back the covers (which triggered the killswitch), climb into the chamber and clean out the debris. One day, the sawyer, thinking he was being funny, decided to mime that he was going to turn on the switch. Being male, I mimed back my intentions if he did. Long story short, he flipped on the switch, the kill-switch did not work and the saw turned on. I do not know how but the next thing I remember I was outside the saw, the saw was off and I was going after the sawyer. The guys restraining me were laughing because the thing I was mad about was the condition of my pants. The only thing the saw damaged was a brand new pair of Levi jeans which the saw cut from just above the knee to within an inch of certain anatomical parts that some say the loss of gives a man the ability to sing at a much higher pitch. It did not break a thread on my garments or put a scratch on my skin. As I said, it is a curious story.

Edited January 30, 2012 by ebeddoulos

[zerinus]

Your thoughts?

The answer is neither. The protection promised comes by faith. It is like baptism, or any other ordinance/sacrament of the gospel. Baptism does you good if it is entered into by faith. Without faith it is worthless. Baptism is a sign of our faith in the promised blessings, and the blessings come because of that faith. Likewise, wearing the garments is a sign of our faith in the promised blessings, and the blessings come because of that faith.

As for the kind of "protection" offered, I believe the protection is mainly against temptation and the power of the devil; but may include protection from physical harm too, if God so wills it.

Edited January 30, 2012 by zerinus

[Storm Rider]

The answer is neither. The protection promised comes by faith. It is like baptism, or any other ordinance/sacrament of the gospel. Baptism does you good if it is entered into by faith. Without faith it is worthless. Baptism is a sign of our faith in the promised blessings, and the blessings come because of that faith. Likewise, wearing the garments is a sign of our faith in the promised blessings, and the blessings come because of that faith.

As for the kind of "protection" offered, I believe the protection is mainly against temptation and the power of the devil; but may include protection from physical harm too, if God so wills it.

The promises of the garmet are quite specific and every individual that has taken their Endowments may remember what the covenants were and the promises given. It is more than "if God so wills it". If God wills it you could be wearing your birthday suit and not be harmed in a fire. When a covenant is made with God, he is bound and the only limitation is our obedience to the covenant being made.

[zerinus]

The promises of the garmet are quite specific and every individual that has taken their Endowments may remember what the covenants were and the promises given. It is more than "if God so wills it". If God wills it you could be wearing your birthday suit and not be harmed in a fire. When a covenant is made with God, he is bound and the only limitation is our obedience to the covenant being made.

I don't recall that the initiatory rite offers protection specifically from physical harm. There are faithful Mormons who have died or been injured as a result of physical violence, such as in war, or as a result of crime. If your theory is correct, then the protection failed in those cases.

[Storm Rider]

I don't recall that the initiatory rite offers protection specifically from physical harm. There are faithful Mormons who have died or been injured as a result of physical violence, such as in war, or as a result of crime. If your theory is correct, then the protection failed in those cases.

I am not saying what the promises were and I am not disagreeing with you. I apologize if it seemed like I was, it was more a comment to everyone. I don't really have a theory, I am just going over the specific covenants and the associated promises.

[zerinus]

I am not saying what the promises were and I am not disagreeing with you. I apologize if it seemed like I was, it was more a comment to everyone. I don't really have a theory, I am just going over the specific covenants and the associated promises.

So what exactly were you saying in response to my post?

[Storm Rider]

So what exactly were you saying in response to my post?

Covenants are beyond the "Will of God". There is no Will involved in a covenant. God promsies you something in exchange for your promise to do something. His Will is already committed; there is no rethinking of the promise on his part.

This comment is not to you specifcially because several other people took the same position. However, in that I quoted you, which I should not have done is the reason I apologized for making it seem like I was singling your comment out as if it was something I was responding to specifically.

[zerinus]

Covenants are beyond the "Will of God". There is no Will involved in a covenant. God promsies you something in exchange for your promise to do something. His Will is already committed; there is no rethinking of the promise on his part.

So are you suggesting that wearing the garments will afford us physical protection unconditionally, regardless of the circumstance? If yes, please state; if no, please explain how that relates to what I had said, or to what anyone else had said for that matter.

This comment is not to you specifcially because several other people took the same position. However, in that I quoted you, which I should not have done is the reason I apologized for making it seem like I was singling your comment out as if it was something I was responding to specifically.

I don't recall anyone else saying exactly what I had said. I am still not clear what it is that you were replying to, and how it related to my post.

[Robert F. Smith]

What is your understanding of the function of temple garments?

Your thoughts?

Everyone has taken a shot at it. How about a non-Mormon view from a biblical scholar: Richard Medina recently said that “[t]he wearing of garments are also part of divine protection (Gen 2:25; 3:7; 3:21); hence the removing of them means loss of it” (Medina in Die Welt des Orients, 38 [2008]:204, re the Job 1:20 ritual sequence; Medina cites M. E. Vogelzang and W. J. van Bekkum, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in H. Vanstiphout, et al., eds., Scripta Signa Vocis [Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986], 267,273).

[Sky]

My answer was B. Although I also believe A can be true, too. I don't think it's necessarily one or the other.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Sky

[zerinus]

Everyone has taken a shot at it. How about a non-Mormon view from a biblical scholar: Richard Medina recently said that “[t]he wearing of garments are also part of divine protection (Gen 2:25; 3:7; 3:21); hence the removing of them means loss of it” (Medina in Die Welt des Orients, 38 [2008]:204, re the Job 1:20 ritual sequence; Medina cites M. E. Vogelzang and W. J. van Bekkum, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in H. Vanstiphout, et al., eds., Scripta Signa Vocis [Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986], 267,273).

Interesting reference; but how does it address the OP? Everyone agrees that it offers protection. The question is how, and of what kind.

[cinepro]

You can tell the difference between who would answer the question different ways by observing who wears long-sleeved and legged garments and who doesn't.

Edited January 30, 2012 by cinepro