Duncan Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 They aren't magical enough to do their own laundry that much I do know 3
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) The Garments are to remind of our covenants with God. They are not a "magic" talisman against physical injury or death. Edited January 30, 2012 by thesometimesaint
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Your thoughts?There is no distinction between the two which can be clearly verbalized.
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 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.My point is that this requires your interpretation which is valid- and so are others! There is nothing "objective" here or no way to say which interpretation is "more right" than any other.
LeSellers Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 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).I also find it interesting that Noah had a "garment". The man who fell among the robbers was stript of his garment. Joseph fled without his garment when Potipher's wife tempted him. The woman with the issue of blood touched Jesus' garment. While it is questionable to assume that any of these were a "sacred" garment, it is also not beyond reason that one or more of them (especially the one of the man who fell among the thieves, and Noah's) were such garments.The scriptures treat "garments" quite differently from how we treat "clothes" today. They represent something more than mere coverings for the body. I believe this is true in how, why, when, and where we receive the Garment of the Holy Priesthood. Lehi
LeSellers Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) The Garments are to remind of our covenants with God. They are not a "magic" talisman against physical injury or death.Your first sentence is true, but incomplete. The Garment of the Holy Priesthood is also explicitly to cover our naked bodies. I believe this does not refer solely to exposed skin, but to our sin, as well. It is, as I serendipitously stated a year or so ago, the part of the Temple we "bring home" with us. It is, like the Temple, a sacred "place", a sort of personal, portable Temple, as it were.Lehi Edited January 30, 2012 by LeSellers 2
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 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.Or how cold it is outside. Cheesh.
maklelan Posted January 30, 2012 Author Posted January 30, 2012 My point is that this requires your interpretation which is valid- and so are others! There is nothing "objective" here or no way to say which interpretation is "more right" than any other.All I'm looking for is each person's personal interpretation. I don't want to know which is objectively true, I want to know which interpretation each person prefers.
aranyborju Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 The Garments are to remind of our covenants with God. They are not a "magic" talisman against physical injury or death.Agreed. I think that sometimes divine protection is attributed where coincidence occurs. I can't be sure because I haven't been present in every situation, but most of the stories that I hear regarding garments offering physical protection sound fishy to me.
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Lehi:My natural reticents to discusss things I consider Holy.
Damien the Leper Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 They aren't magical enough to do their own laundry that much I do knowI must be easily amused because I thought this response was pretty dang funny. Thanks, Duncan. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) All I'm looking for is each person's personal interpretation. I don't want to know which is objectively true, I want to know which interpretation each person prefers.Okie dokie- so in that case I vote for choice number 3- "all of the above"!One might even argue that belief in garments itself can "cause" them to be protective, as one might believe that it possible that one can be healed through faith alone with no priesthood or other authority present.I think that happens, and I think there is pretty convincing evidence for it. Whether or not that counts as something "supernatural" is another question. Edited January 30, 2012 by mfbukowski
LeSellers Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) I must be easily amused because I thought this response was pretty dang funny. Thanks, Duncan.There is no way to determine how easily you are amused, but I found it to be so flip as to border on mockery. (Which side of the border is open to debate.)The Garment is an integral part of the Endowment, literally "a gift (from God)". Calling them, or alluding to those who do, as magical is not in keeping with the sacred nature of that gift.Lehi Edited January 30, 2012 by LeSellers
Ray Callis Hatton III Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Most people might be remembering the "60 Minutes" program on the LDS Church which they interviewed Bill Marriott (of the Marriott hotel chain) when on the subject of garments, he told a story of how he believed he was physically protected from harm during a bad boat fire. His pants were burned off, and his uncovered portion of his legs were burnt, but where the garments were, he was untouched.Though in such cases as this, it was not "supernatural" properties of the garment that protected him, but the extra layer of clothes that kept the fire from his skin. Yes, if he was not wearing his garments then he would have been burned there too, so in that manner, it protected him. Edited January 30, 2012 by Ray Callis Hatton III
Matthew J. Tandy Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I chose B. I put together a paper once that you may be interested in Mak. Everyone here may be. Sadly, it's mostly handwritten, and I haven't transcribed it yet to PC. It's been a while. Anyway, the short of it is that the garment, in scripture, is a physical representation of the garments or robes of "light" that are seen or referenced in conjunction with angels, gods, and faithful spirits. This spiritual garment is maintained in scripture by righteousness and waxes and wanes in relation to that righteousness. It is, itself, incorruptible. The physical garments remind us of the spiritual, and the symbols remind us of the covenants we must follow to maintain the spiritual protection.In the paper, I explore an interesting evolution of the thoughts surrounding the garments in LDS history. Soon after Joseph's death, a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy said in a conference in Salt Lake that the reason Joseph died was because he took his garments off before he left (Joseph did in fact do this, as he did not want the sacred garment ridiculed or abused upon his death), and that had he not done so he would still have been alive. So the thought of physical protection, and speculation, started pretty early. However, the one thing my research shows is that revelation on the matter has not been received, but people have taken from the ceremonies what they want. The scriptures, being the only doctrinal source of commentary we have on it, again indicate it is spiritual.There are a few notable modern instance of physical protection. One particular one I looked in to was that of Willard (or maybe it was Bill) Marriott from an interview on a Dateline or 20/20 back in the 1990's. In it he describes an experience wherein he was caught in a fire and had severe burns, including all of his clothes. Except his garments. They were dirty, but unburned, and his skin was only a little pink underneath. This certainly seems miraculous. However, this is actually a common phenomenon. Slightly or heavily overweight people, who are wearing non-synthetics (such as cotton) that are tightly held to the body, create a system of heat redistribution and protection. The simplest way to see this in action is to take a cotton handkerchief and wrap it tightly around a quarter, such that one face of the quarter is completely covered by a section of the cloth that is smooth and taught. Then take a match, candle, or lighter to it. It won't burn. A lot of time it won't even turn grey or black. But take that same cloth even a little away from the quarter surface, light a match, and up it goes in flames.Here is where it gets tricky though: You cannot simply say that shows that Mr. Marriott did not receive physical protection from God by virtue of his garment. While it can be shown the mechanics by which he was saved, it can be argued that God knows that mechanic, being all knowing, and took that into account as a way to offer protection. You can't disprove it, and it doesn't even seem unreasonable. So the physical protection was not mystical or magical, but it could still be divinely inspired.
Matthew J. Tandy Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 hah, Ray jsut mentioned the same Marriott example seconds before I posted mine. Fun stuff.
Duncan Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I must be easily amused because I thought this response was pretty dang funny. Thanks, Duncan. no problem!
blackstrap Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Well,time to be apocryphal , again. My Dad,as I said in another thread,worked as a coal stoker as a young married man. One day he was washing out his coveralls in the only liquid that would do the job,gasoline. He was doing this in a small house kitchen with the door open.The gasoline fumes built up while he worked and eventually reached the pilot light on the heater. BANG. He found himself sitting outside the house. He peeled the skin off his arms like a glove.The burns,which left mottled skin on his arms the rest of his life,stopped right at the garment line below his shoulders. Edited January 31, 2012 by blackstrap
Sky Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Could it be possible that garments function for us in much the same way that the Liahona functioned for father Lehi and his family in the wilderness? That it only works according to the faith and diligence and heed which we give unto them – with garments by actively striving to keep our temple covenants. And the holy garments will act as a shield and protection unto us – but not necessarily limited to spiritual protection? I’m just throwing out some ideas.
Duncan Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 one area of concern is for people that die in accidents or some tragic mishaps and the garments didn't protect them so those of us alive speculate that they weren't worthy or judge them. I am thinking of that situation a few months back I posted on here with that elder whose brother died and was deemed unworthy to listen to the spirit because he didn't go on a mission-whether or not he had garments I have no idea
Robert F. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Interesting reference; but how does it address the OP? Everyone agrees that it offers protection. The question is how, and of what kind.I like most of the answers thus far, but am not taking sides. However, I probably ought to add that religious Jews today often wear garments to remind them of the commandments of the Lord. I am thinking of the yarmulka (kippa) and of the tallit with tzitzit which they put on each morning.
zerinus Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) I like most of the answers thus far, but am not taking sides. However, I probably ought to add that religious Jews today often wear garments to remind them of the commandments of the Lord. I am thinking of the yarmulka (kippa) and of the tallit with tzitzit which they put on each morning.The kippa is not meant to "remind" them of anything, but is supposed to just be a covering for their heads; and even if it were a "reminder" of some description, it would still bear no resemblance or relationship to the Mormon temple garments. The tallit (prayer shawl) is not a legal requirement either; but the tzitzit is (and it is also meant as a reminder); which again bears no resemblance or relationship to the temple garments. The Jews were given many symbols to remind them to keep the commandants of the Lord (or as signs to distinguish them from the Gentiles, including the Payot and many others), none of which bears any resemblance or relationship to the the Mormon temple garments. Edited January 31, 2012 by zerinus
volgadon Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 The kippa is not meant to "remind" them of anything, but is supposed to just be a covering for their heads; and even if it were a "reminder" of some description, it would still bear no resemblance or relationship to the Mormon temple garments. The tallit (prayer shawl) is not a legal requirement either; but the tzitzit is (and it is also meant as a reminder); which again bears no resemblance or relationship to the temple garments. The Jews were given many symbols to remind them to keep the commandants of the Lord (or as signs to distinguish them from the Gentiles, including the Payot and many others), none of which bears any resemblance or relationship to the the Mormon temple garments.No relationship, sure, but similar functions in many cases. Take for example the gertel, a sash worn by Hasidic Jews in order to separatethe upper half from the impure lower. Other religious authorities have ruled that belts and elastic bands in trousers fulfil that requirement already. Kippot are also worn as reminders. I remember talking to a Yeshivah student in the army. He asked me why we don't wear external reminders of the commandments, such as a kippa.
mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 The Catholic version:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapular
K-2 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I couldn't pick either choice. I believe that the Lord supernaturally protects those who wear their garments and keep the associated covenants in both a physical sense and a spiritual sense. I've been protected on numerous occasions, often by receiving a prompting concerning what to do to avoid harm. I don't think that the garments themselves are "magic." I saw a video on youtube of a guy shooting a pair of garments with a handgun in order to "prove" that they offer no protection. That's just pea-brained and ridiculous.
Recommended Posts