The Function Of Garments

[Garden Girl]

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.

Yes, just ask J. W. Marriott... during an interview on national TV with I believe it was Mike Wallace, he and Steve Young were being asked about their faith... and the question was asked about the wearing of the garments and if they really believed they had protective capabilities. Marriott immediately answered that in his experience they did, and he then related a story about being on his boat and a fire breaking out. He was burned on his legs everywhere that was not covered by his garments. He told the story without embarassment, just as a matter of fact.

Steve Young said that he did not wear his garments on the playing field because of the sweat and blood. But as soon as the game was over and he had showered he once again put them on. He told how his teammates were used to seeing his garments in the locker room as he dressed . One time a new player saw them and said to Steve... hey, that looks like comfortable underwear... where can I get a pair... Steve chuckled and answered him that the price was probably too high.

I thought it was interesting and rather nice that they could speak on national TV about their garments.

GG

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Garden Girl, Blackstrap: I addressed the Marriott fire issue previously in the thread. Blackstrap, the same principle applies to your father's incidence. It is pure science as to how both were protected at the moment. What is left to theology is whether or not God anticipated this effect as a form of protection. I would assume he uses such techniques through foresight. But that is different than mystical protection from the garment itself.

[bluebell]

Yes, just ask J. W. Marriott... during an interview on national TV with I believe it was Mike Wallace, he and Steve Young were being asked about their faith... and the question was asked about the wearing of the garments and if they really believed they had protective capabilities. Marriott immediately answered that in his experience they did, and he then related a story about being on his boat and a fire breaking out. He was burned on his legs everywhere that was not covered by his garments. He told the story without embarassment, just as a matter of fact.

Steve Young said that he did not wear his garments on the playing field because of the sweat and blood. But as soon as the game was over and he had showered he once again put them on. He told how his teammates were used to seeing his garments in the locker room as he dressed . One time a new player saw them and said to Steve... hey, that looks like comfortable underwear... where can I get a pair... Steve chuckled and answered him that the price was probably too high.

I thought it was interesting and rather nice that they could speak on national TV about their garments.

GG

I know of one example of a woman who was in the process of being raped and who's attacker stopped and ran off when he encountered her garments. I'm not saying that that would happen in 100% of such cases, but it seems to me to be a good example of physical protection.

[Pahoran]

I don't believe that garments have supernatural properties. I don't believe that any physical object has supernatural properties. I believe that garments are an important symbol, a private reminder of the promises we have made.

That said, Willard Richards was the only person in the upper room in Carthage Jail on June 27, 1844 to be wearing his garments when the mob attacked. He was also the only one to escape without serious injury.

Was he protected? I believe he was.

Did his garments protect him? I don't believe so.

Did wearing his garments as an act of faith in the prophetic promises he had received protect him? That's a different question, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[maklelan]

I appreciate everyone's comments. I started this poll because someone on another board asserted that the notion that garments only protect indirectly insofar as they serve to remind the wearer to be faithful to their covenants (in much the same way a WWJD bracelet reminds someone of their religious ideals) would be considered (1) an atypical LDS belief, and (2) an anti-Mormon interpretation. I insisted that it was a quite common interpretation, although obviously not the only one. I'm now being told that the results are useless because the notion conflicts with their interpretation of LDS publications, because this board is inhabited by the imaginary "internet Mormons," and because I am influencing people toward a specific choice because of my intimidating education. I think these are ridiculous concerns, but does anyone here think this interpretation is atypical or in conflict with any official position?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Whether or not these things bear any resemblance or relationship to Mormon temple garments, you might want to take a look at Hugh Nibley's wonderfully illustrated study of "Sacred Vestments," in his Temple & Cosmos, CWHN XII:91-138, which is online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=103&chapid=1149 . You may then begin to see the interrelationships among many ancient traditions, of which we Mormons are only the most recent.

[Pahoran]

I appreciate everyone's comments. I started this poll because someone on another board asserted that the notion that garments only protect indirectly insofar as they serve to remind the wearer to be faithful to their covenants (in much the same way a WWJD bracelet reminds someone of their religious ideals) would be considered (1) an atypical LDS belief, and (2) an anti-Mormon interpretation. I insisted that it was a quite common interpretation, although obviously not the only one. I'm now being told that the results are useless because the notion conflicts with their interpretation of LDS publications, because this board is inhabited by the imaginary "internet Mormons," and because I am influencing people toward a specific choice because of my intimidating education. I think these are ridiculous concerns, but does anyone here think this interpretation is atypical or in conflict with any official position?

Actually it's not your intimidating education, it's your intimidating avatar. I'm too terrified of being beaten up by a cartoon kitty to say what I really think, which is the garments create a force field around the wearer that repels bullets -- but only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, unless there's an R in the month, in which case it's Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Sundays we go to Church, so there's no danger to be protected from. There, will that do?

I received my Endowments in 1977. After the Initiatory ordinances and before the actual Endowment session, I had an interview with the Temple President. He told me then that the function of the garment was as a symbol of the covenants I was making; that it was obedience to the covenants that really brought protection; and that the protection was primarily spiritual.

He must have been an "internet Mormon." (Snort.)

Your interlocutors are making no effort to discuss anything in good faith.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 1, 2012 by Pahoran

[maklelan]

Actually it's not your intimidating education, it's your intimidating avatar. I'm too terrified of being beaten up by a cartoon kitty to say what I really think, which is the garments create a force field around the wearer that repels bullets -- but only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, unless there's an R in the month, in which case it's Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Sundays we go to Church, so there's no danger to be protected from. There, will that do?

I received my Endowments in 1977. After the Initiatory ordinances and before the actual Endowment session, I had and interview with the Temple President. He told me then that the function of the garment was as a symbol of the covenants I was making; that it was obedience to the covenants that really brought protection; and that the protection was primarily spiritual.

He must have been an "internet Mormon." (Snort.)

Your interlocutors are making no effort to discuss anything in good faith.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks for the info. That is consistent with my understanding as well, and no, they're not trying to discuss anything in good faith. That's pretty obvious.

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate everyone's comments. I started this poll because someone on another board asserted that the notion that garments only protect indirectly insofar as they serve to remind the wearer to be faithful to their covenants (in much the same way a WWJD bracelet reminds someone of their religious ideals) would be considered (1) an atypical LDS belief, and (2) an anti-Mormon interpretation. I insisted that it was a quite common interpretation, although obviously not the only one. I'm now being told that the results are useless because the notion conflicts with their interpretation of LDS publications, because this board is inhabited by the imaginary "internet Mormons," and because I am influencing people toward a specific choice because of my intimidating education. I think these are ridiculous concerns, but does anyone here think this interpretation is atypical or in conflict with any official position?

The only people who think education is "intimidating" are those who don't have one. That should be a clue to the level of education of your critic, but more importantly, it is a terrible argument. One can be uneducated and still have enough intelligence to make a good argument- and one can be educated and not be able to reason effectively to put that education to use.

I think that it is definitely a common LDS view that we are protected by garments only insofar as they remind us of our covenants.

In fact, without giving the exact wording of the promise, it is clear that the protection they provide is against the power of Satan- not accidents and misfortunes. Satan's only power over us is to tempt us- to do what? to forsake our covenants!

It is a common practice for people to blame God for misfortune, tsunamis etc. and yet it is clearly LDS doctrine that it is ultimately man's agency- and the attendant need for us to suffer natural, unpredictable, consequences of natural disasters, drunken drivers etc.

In fact one might argue that the belief that garments protect against such accidental consequences is in fact contrary to the doctrine that God does not cause- nor prevent- accidents from happening!

How many talks are there from GA's about adversity and bad things happening to good people? If garments prevent those things from happening, magically- why are there all those talks?

Why aren't the GA's just admonishing people to "be good and wear your garments- and those things won't happen"? No more tsunamis, drunken drivers, etc.

Why aren't they teaching that? Because we don't believe that!

[Matthew J. Tandy]

but does anyone here think this interpretation is atypical or in conflict with any official position?

Mak, while I obviously don't believe in "magical" properties to them, I certainly know many older members, especially in the south, who beleive they are both physical and spiritual protection. Sometimes they have a story to back it up, someitmes even personal experience. I've never bothered to argue with anyone unless it was an intellectual discussion.

As far as I see it, it's irrelevent to the end result as I beleive in it. All parties agree that any protection is based on meeting the covenants they made. This immediately separates our use of garments and symbols from that of glyphs or wards. Glyphs or wards, such as the Ottoman rulers often ahd on their undergarments, were mystical/magical protection. They weren't based on personal adherence to covenants. The power is in the symbol, glyph, or ward in those cases. As I don't know of any member who beleives that about LDS garments, it means that anyone who wears them is trying to follow Christ, and thus are protected by whatever ultimate means God intends.

[blackstrap]

If God warns you of a danger,"get up and move the wagon",He does not stop the storm(although He could)He does not stop the tree from falling(although He could).If you listen to the promptings then you are saved,spiritually and occasionally physically.

[ERayR]

Garden Girl, Blackstrap: I addressed the Marriott fire issue previously in the thread. Blackstrap, the same principle applies to your father's incidence. It is pure science as to how both were protected at the moment. What is left to theology is whether or not God anticipated this effect as a form of protection. I would assume he uses such techniques through foresight. But that is different than mystical protection from the garment itself.

There you go again, replacing faith in God with faith in science.

[zerinus]

I think that it is definitely a common LDS view that we are protected by garments only insofar as they remind us of our covenants.

I think it is a common LDS view that we are protected by garments only insofar as we have faith in the promises. Of course, keeping the commandments is a prerrequisite to having that faith.

Edited February 2, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

I think it is a common LDS view that we are protected be garments only insofar as we have faith in the promises. Of course, keeping the commandments is a prerrequisite to having that faith.

Sounds good to me! We agree! Send up some fireworks or something!

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I tried sending a message to you, but your messenger capacity is probably full. So here it is:

Shalom Volgadon, just got an SBL notice that on Monday Feb 6 there will be a symposium on Ancient Near Eastern Temples: Form, Function, Symbolism (13 Shevat 5772, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva). Can you or someone you know attend and report back? Thanks.

Ciao,

Bob Smith

Edited February 2, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Matthew J. Tandy]

There you go again, replacing faith in God with faith in science.

I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek or not. If not, then your implication I am doing something "again" is odd, since I dont' comment much, and I doubt anything that would lead someone to assume "replacing faith in God with faith in science." Also, I think my posts were clear that I have faith that God uses science.

If it was in jest... well... I'm just overly sensitive.:-) A smiley helps to tell though.

[volgadon]

I tried sending a message to you, but your messenger capacity is probably full. So here it is:

Shalom Volgadon, just got an SBL notice that on Monday Feb 6 there will be a symposium on Ancient Near Eastern Temples: Form, Function, Symbolism (13 Shevat 5772, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva). Can you or someone you know attend and report back? Thanks.

Ciao,

Bob Smith

Oh man, I wish I was able to. My parents woud be at work up north at that time, but contact the Ben-Gurion Uni. Don't know if SBL would let them in this case, but they tend to put a lot of lectures on youtube.

[KevinG]

I would have answered mostly the second (protection through obedience to covenants) exclusively before my own chainsaw incident where my clothing and garment were cut clean through but my skin remained untouched.

Now I say all of the above. Although I suspect the primary role of the garment is to remind us of our covenants and pretect us spiritually.

[Garden Girl]

Sorry Matthew Tandy... I didn't see your Marriott story before I posted...

My personal experience with the wearing of the garment has been of spiritual protection. As some here have mentioned... the garments reminding me of the covenants I have made and strengthening me to live those covenants.

Every morning as I put on my fresh garments, it feels... to me... like I'm putting on the full armor of Christ... and I love that feeling as I start my day.

GG

[Garden Girl]

Sorry Matthew Tandy... I didn't see your Marriott story before I posted...

My personal experience with the wearing of the garment has been of spiritual protection. As some here have mentioned... the garments reminding me of the covenants I have made and strengthening me to live those covenants.

Every morning as I put on my fresh garments, it feels... to me... like I'm putting on the full armor of Christ... and I love that feeling as I start my day.

GG

[rongo]

Interestingly, the phrase "and when properly worn, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil" has been completely removed from the statement on garments in new temple recommend books that will be sent out to bishops (per a First Presidency letter dated December 9, 2011). There are also more explicit statements that specifically mention removing garments entirely or partially for yardwork.

[rongo]

Please disregard. I didn't read it carefully enough. The statement is still there.

Nothing to see here, people. Go on about your business . . .

[Mansquatch]

I believe there is no physical strength or protection that comes from any piece of cloth beyond an extra layer to burn or cut through. I do not like garments at all. But I still wear them because I promised I would, even if I think it is very goofy and strange and I loved sleeping with no shirt on. The strength, power and protection comes from covenants, faith and obedience. Garments are a goofy symbol of my very non-goofy promises. I would very much prefer a sacred symbol that I didn't fart on.

[maklelan]

I would very much prefer a sacred symbol that I didn't fart on.

My own garments have magically accommodated similar sensitivities by producing strategically placed holes, thus mitigating their desecration.

[Maidservant]

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.

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

I don't use the idea "supernatural" as a frame for anything concept I hold (i.e. nothing is nor can be supernatural for me and I do not equate supernatural with miraculous, and everything is miraculous for me), although I could use "powerful" here. But I don't walk around expecting physical miracles because of my garments; but neither have I studied or thought on that much.

But I also take exception to equating "symbolism" with "reminder". If the garments were only a "reminder" of my covenants, as if I couldn't remember what they were, then I might not wear them (except because I promised to). Even to say that when wearing our garments all the time it provides more opportunity for thinking and pondering and unlocking the keys of the temple . . . even that is better than saying "reminder" (or maybe that is more like what you meant when using the word "reminder").

I like what Lehi has to say here. When I say the word "symbolism", I am evoking a great deal of power, whether spiritual or physical (as I do not divide the spiritual from the physical nor from any other portion of what it means to be human). If I call the garment a symbol, it is not at all a reminder. It is a carrier or a vessel for power and endless layers of meaning and opportunity for transformation. Not so much because of it being cloth, but because we invest it with that power (as has been suggested by the comments saying that it is actually keeping our covenants that brings the power). It is okay to invest an inanimate object with power (spiritual or as you name it) and thereafter have it function with that power. We do that all the time and call it technology.

Having said this, however, I have come to realize that the garments worn are an image, or substitute, for the actual garment, which is our body. But we need to know things about our body by learning from the garment. Again, I like what Lehi said about portable temple.