3 Years A Mormon

[wenglund]

Effort: B-

Grammar: C+

Wit: D

 

Nice try, needs improvement.

 

Seems I have a knack for bringing out the humor-impaired schoolmarm in some people

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

You're all right newb! I like the way you think. If we were in close proximity to each other, I think we could hit it off. 

 

I'm not put off by your questions. Especially as a new convert to the church, I see you, like all of us, as (to borrow a metaphor) a rough stone rolling down the river of life, finding that it's our jagged edges that first come in contact to life's obstacles, only to find over time those sharp edges being made smooth and polished. The only time the polishing stops is when we stop rolling!  Our trip down the river called, the church is no different.

 

In regards to your query, I think it simple to say that you have merely bumped up against the paradox of the Good News; that the Son of God came into the world, that he might draw (invites) all men unto him as servants (actually the Greek word is slave)......wherein he will make us free!

 

And not only free, but sons and daughters of the Father, heir to all He has.

 

It explodes the mind.......and snags, not a few, of our rough edges in the doing!!

Edited May 6, 2014 by Senator

[Avatar4321]

 

 

Of course, as Mormons, agency is all-important.  Yet, on its face, the garment requirement seems to fly in the face of our theological need to exercise our agency to return to HF.  If we can't be trusted to pick out our own undergarments, then how can HF possibly trust us to choose wisely with respect to an eternal companion, living the law of chastity, tithing, etc.?

 

You think you can't choose whether to wear your garments after your endowed? I could go buy a package of any underwear and wear them from now till I die.

 

I don't though. Not because I'm forced to. But because I chose to make covenants with Heavenly Father. I choose to follow it. Even if others think it's silly. And while I have no idea what the blessing of wearing them will be, I know He will bless me for doing so.

 

Don't forget that when we are making choices, we can choose to do what the Lord wants. That is a choice too. In fact, no one can force us to choose what the Lord wants. We have to do that voluntarily.

[Ahab]

I need further light and knowledge about the necessity of wearing garments.

Perhaps no Mormon belief/practice was harder for me to embrace than the wearing of garments. In fact, I was so "spooked" by the idea that I delayed going to the temple until a full-year after the probationary period.

Now, I know that for you BICers, this was probably never an issue. You grew up in households with parents who wear them and its just something you put on in the morning. Why would you even consider wearing something different?

However, I grew up in a community where there was only one type of person who wore institution-selected undergarments -- a convict. And being subject to an institution that picked out your underwear for you was about the most demeaning thing one could imagine. In fact, whenever my father suspected that I was becoming enamored with the car or status of a neighborhood hoodlum, he would say something like, "Lil' Ray Ray has a nice car, doesn't he? Well, just remember, son, that in two years, he's going to be wearing somebody else's underwear." And this little "reminder" would instantly make his car look less shiny because it came with the ultimate price -- the lack of freedom.

Of course, as Mormons, agency is all-important. Yet, on its face, the garment requirement seems to fly in the face of our theological need to exercise our agency to return to HF. If we can't be trusted to pick out our own undergarments, then how can HF possibly trust us to choose wisely with respect to an eternal companion, living the law of chastity, tithing, etc.?

During temple prep classes, I expressed this concern to my bishop. Perhaps sensing that at my then pace, I'd be taking out my endowments posthumously, he suggested that I "try out" the garments. If they cause terrible pestilence (or a rash), I should take them off. Otherwise, I should use them as the reminder they are meant to be. And while I haven't suffered any physical ill effects, my "cheerful and rosy" demeanor has suffered.

I noticed this a few months ago during the Oscar weekend when I Photoshopped myself and my "handler" (my home teaching companion) into the poster for the eventual best picture winner and entitled it, "3 Years a Mormon." In hindsight that might have been a heavy-handed way to make the point, but I just couldn't shake the feeling that I didn't end up all that different from Lil' Ray Ray ... and, at least, he got a fancy car out of the deal.

Has anyone else wrestled with this requirement? How did you finally come to grips with it?

I struggled a bit for a while and then realized the symboism is the important part and then after thinking about how much trouble it would be to add the symbols to other underwear I decided it was just easier to buy underwear with the symbols already on them. I was already wearing boxers and t-shirts before I became a member though so I can see how it would take a little more adjustment for someone who wears briefs and...gasp, no t-shirt.

[cinepro]

Has anyone else wrestled with this requirement?  How did you finally come to grips with it?

 

Honestly, you are living in the golden age of garments.  There are different styles and cuts to choose from, including short sleeve (and short legged).  There are even "compression" garments that are like white Under Armour.  They are now two piece, so it's like wearing shorts and a t-shirt instead of wearing baggy one-piece victorian pajamas.  I'm pretty sure the cost is subsidized heavily by the Church, so it's the best deal in town.

 

So it may have its down-sides, but this is one of those things where you'll run into people in heaven who wore garments in the past and they will think you were absolutely crazy.  Not as crazy as someone who complains about not being able to use a cell phone on an airplane, but still crazy.

 

 

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2008/08/26/ads-youre-not-going-to-see-again-anytime-soon-chapter-5/

[mnn727]

Convert here also. Garments are both comfortable and inexpensive - whats not to like?

[The Nehor]

Convert here also. Garments are both comfortable and inexpensive - whats not to like?

And if you find them uncomfortable wear your undies of choice underneath them or on top of them or whatever. Problem solved.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Personally, I have taken to wearing tzittzit...
 

Numbers 15

 

15:37 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments, throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue;

15:39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring;

15:40 That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

 

Edited May 6, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Vookman]

But Elisha sent a messenger out to him with this message: "Go and wash yourself seven times in the Jordan River. Then your skin will be restored, and you will be healed of your leprosy."  2 Kings 5:10

 

That is the kind of agency we are talking about.  There are better rivers elsewhere.  It is not a great thing to dip seven times.  Some choices come down to simple obedience.  Eating bread and micro cups of water prayed over by teenagers and passed by 12 year olds standing in for Jesus himself takes a lot of faith.  Doing it in remembrance of Jesus being crucified seems morbid to some.  We all have strengths and weaknesses.  I just try to remember that the first sheep killed for the garments worn by Adam and Even was done to prefigure the sacrifice made by Christ.  On the other hand, I don't do enough nice things for my neighbors.  I am working on that.  Find a way to understand why it is important, even if you don't enjoy it.  In time you may be surprised.

[Calm]

how much trouble it would be to add the symbols to other underwear I decided it was just easier to buy underwear with the symbols already on them.

This is not seen as acceptable, members are not supposed to alter the garments (though if someone has a problem with lace itching, it might be okay to remove that i am assuming, one could check if wondering) and no longer have permission to make their own. Tacenda's claim may be possible, though I cant figure out how one can place marks on regular underwear and how if regular underwear could be worn, but some material of garment could not be...but permission was still required.

"Members may make their own temple aprons only if they use the approved apron embroidery and sewing kit that is available through Church Distribution Services. Other temple ceremonial clothing may not be made. Nor may temple garments be made.

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment. The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. When properly worn, it provides protection against temptation and evil. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.

Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.

Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies#21.1.42

Having posted that, I am evidence they do make certain exceptions for medical reasons. If you have physical difficulties that are beyond inconvenience, talk to your bishop (granted, I may have lucked out in having a doctor at the time as my bishop).

Edited May 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

This is not seen as acceptable, members are not supposed to alter the garments (though if someone has a problem with lace itching, it might be okay to remove that i am assuming, one could check if wondering) and no longer have permission to make their own. Tacenda's claim may be possible, though I cant figure out how one can place marks on regular underwear and how if regular underwear could be worn, but some material of garment could not be...but permission was still required.

 

IIRC there used to be instructions for making the Garments at home. I haven't heard that it is prohibited, but now, and for the last many years, so uncommon that it really isn't worth the effort.

[Calm]

IIRC there used to be instructions for making the Garments at home. I haven't heard that it is prohibited, but now, and for the last many years, so uncommon that it really isn't worth the effort.

Yes, there used to be. No, it is not allowed anymore...see the posted policy above. Given that the cost used to be twice as much before Pres. Hinckley told them to cut it to make having enough affordable for everyone, I highly doubt anyone could save money by doing it themselves these days, so I suspect they felt removing that option would discourage any rationalisation for altering for a better fit, etc. (and I do feel sorry for those whose proportions make garments awkward in that they fit one part of the body but don't elsewhere....my dil has that difficulty where her top goes way too long so she ends up sitting on it and at times it pulls on her and I know of some women who have to wear the bottoms very baggy in order to be long enough...though reading the policy again I can see how someone could argue that taking them in at the side seams does not change the design, that is not something I know about...shortening them is not allowed from what I've seen since that would be to accommodate wearing them with the style of clothing one chooses and I assume this is even for when they are longer than required). Edited May 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

I hope this isn't sacreligious if I share this story. But we Mormons can laugh at ourselves right?

Many years ago, my husband and I went to a Diana Ross concert. She started singing a song, I think it was "Let's Get Physical" but that may be Olivia Newton John's song also, anyway she picked out members in the audience to dance on the stage. And then she had the guys take their shirts off to show off their muscles. This one guy was dancing and she went over to help him take off his shirt, well he was wearing the one piece garment, and when Diana was pulling up his shirt she couldn't understand why his t-shirt wouldn't come up. But we Utahns knew what was the problem, we sympathised with the guy. I don't know what Diana thought.

Garments have come along way luckily. My dad loved the long garments for the warmth on his legs, which were in alot of pain from an accident.

My big peeve is that they don't stay white very long since they are dyed. My garments usually go a dingy gray color. If anyone knows a good way to wash them, I'm all ears.

[Tacenda]

Dbl post

Edited May 6, 2014 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

triple post

Edited May 6, 2014 by Tacenda

[Buzzard]

It's  funny, but I come at this from a different POV. I'm old enough that when I first wore garments, only one-piece was available. When two-piece became available, I was used to the "union suits", and just kept wearing them. Someone once asked me why, I thought of the passage from Peter where he refers to the Saints as a "peculiar people". Wearing one piece garments helped me feel a little more peculiar after a fashion. So for all of my adult life, I wore zip front one piece, and loved it. The only two piece I had were thermal pairs for being outside in the winter. And BTW, the Thermax long sleeve/pant garments are very good thermals for the money.

In 2008, I had surgery and was given an ostomy. Now, for very obvious reasons, I HAD to wear two piece garments. Cutting up the marks on my zip fronts was one of the saddest days of my life. I still have one pair buried in the back of my dresser for sentimentality's sake.

I wish I could still wear union suits. But I am rapidly falling behind the times. They are no longer available at retail, but must be ordered online. I suspect even that option will go away sooner rather than later.  

[pogi]

You're all right newb! I like the way you think. If we were in close proximity to each other, I think we could hit it off. 

 

I'm not put off by your questions. Especially as a new convert to the church, I see you, like all of us, as (to borrow a metaphor) a rough stone rolling down the river of life, finding that it's our jagged edges that first come in contact to life's obstacles, only to find over time those sharp edges being made smooth and polished. The only time the polishing stops is when we stop rolling!  Our trip down the river called, the church is no different.

 

In regards to your query, I think it simple to say that you have merely bumped up against the paradox of the Good News; that the Son of God came into the world, that he might draw (invites) all men unto him as servants (actually the Greek word is slave)......wherein he will make us free!

 

And not only free, but sons and daughters of the Father, heir to all He has.

 

It explodes the mind.......and snags, not a few, of our rough edges in the doing!!

 

Well said, and so true!  

 

Our agency does not free us from serving a master.  It simply allows us to choose which master we will serve. 

 

“You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness (Rom 6:18).”

 

This is the miracle in the paradox, that when we lose our lives for the sake of the Father, we actually find it (Matt 10:39).  It is in the submission of our will to do that of the Father's that we become one with truth - which sets us free.  When we become one with the Father, we become as free as he is; as unencumbered as truth.  

 

Here is an absolutely wonderful talk on this subject for any interested: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/swallowed-up-in-the-will-of-the-father?lang=eng

[Senator]

Well said, and so true!  

 

Our agency does not free us from serving a master.  It simply allows us to choose which master we will serve. 

 

“You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness (Rom 6:18).”

 

This is the miracle in the paradox, that when we lose our lives for the sake of the Father, we actually find it (Matt 10:39).  It is in the submission of our will to do that of the Father's that we become one with truth - which sets us free.  When we become one with the Father, we become as free as he is; as unencumbered as truth.  

 

Here is an absolutely wonderful talk on this subject for any interested: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/swallowed-up-in-the-will-of-the-father?lang=eng

 

Indeed.

 

Here's another by John MacArthur an Evangelical.  Rather long but worth the read.

 

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-321/slaves-for-christ

[mormonnewb]

You're all right newb! I like the way you think. If we were in close proximity to each other, I think we could hit it off. 

 

I'm not put off by your questions. Especially as a new convert to the church, I see you, like all of us, as (to borrow a metaphor) a rough stone rolling down the river of life, finding that it's our jagged edges that first come in contact to life's obstacles, only to find over time those sharp edges being made smooth and polished. The only time the polishing stops is when we stop rolling!  Our trip down the river called, the church is no different.

 

In regards to your query, I think it simple to say that you have merely bumped up against the paradox of the Good News; that the Son of God came into the world, that he might draw (invites) all men unto him as servants (actually the Greek word is slave)......wherein he will make us free!

 

And not only free, but sons and daughters of the Father, heir to all He has.

 

It explodes the mind.......and snags, not a few, of our rough edges in the doing!!

 

Now, that's the perspective I was looking for!  Freedom through obedience to God, huh?  Okay, I can swing with that, but I still have this nagging question:

 

How do I know that the garment requirement comes from God?

 

This isn't a problem I have with, say, tithing.  Tithing is mentioned explicitly in the Bible.  It is a practice that is common to Christians of all brands.  In fact, I tithed as a Baptist.  I've even tithed when between churches.  I THINK I even understand the logical reasons for such a practice -- it serves as a constant reminder of our roles of stewards, it forces a measure of financial discipline, it moves forward the work of salvation, etc.

 

I confess that I don't have the same understanding of the garments.  Most often, clothing and grooming commandments are external and serve as a "marker" to others within (or even outside) of the tribe.  If I remember correctly, members of a priestly class were required to wear certain "vestments" but that requirement didn't apply to the entire tribe.  In our Church, the garment requirement applies to the highest leaders and the most lowly of priesthood holders, and even ... gasp ... women.  Now, perhaps I've just missing something here.  Earlier posts have provided resources that might have the answers I seek (although the Cliffnotes version would be greatly appreciated ... hint-hint).

 

In my more skeptical days (and yes, I was once "worse" than this), I was pretty sure that the garment requirement was a way of building up to the "Big Ask."  For example, a traveling preacher does not start his revival sermon by passing around the collection plate.  If he did, it would come back nearly empty.  Instead, he builds up to the big ask by getting smaller levels of commitment from his soon-to-be benefactors.  "Raise your hands high in the air if you love Jesus!" "Tap your neighbor on the shoulder and say, 'He loves you too!'" "Empty the contents of your purse into the offering basket." "Sell all of your belongings and let's all move to Peru."  Of course, you former missionaries know nothing about this kind of tactic, but just take my word for it.  It works!

 

So, when I first heard of the garment requirement, I immediately thought, "That's genius!  It's a daily 'little ask.'  'Say your prayers!   Put this on!  And don't forget your tithes ... and fast offerings!'"

 

At this stage of my conversion, I'm sure that the garment is NOT just a cheap ploy to get our tithes.  I am convinced that our leaders have our best interests at heart and want us to experience all the blessings of the Gospel.  Yet, I still partly suspect that the garment requirement MAY be a creation of men -- well-intentioned men who understand that people who continually engage in small acts of obedience are more likely to be obedient in larger matters.

 

Now that I think about it, perhaps it doesn't really matter whether the requirement is of God or of men.  If it helps to build obedience in the "weightier matters of the law," then that should probably be justification enough ... or is it?

Edited May 6, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Duncan]

Now, that's the perspective I was looking for!  Freedom through obedience to God, huh?  Okay, I can swing with that, but I still have this nagging question:

 

How do I know that the garment requirement comes from God?

 

This isn't a problem I have with, say, tithing.  Tithing is mentioned explicitly in the Bible.  It is a practice that is common to Christians of all brands.  In fact, I tithed as a Baptist.  I've even tithed when between churches.  I THINK I even understand the logical reasons for such a practice -- it serves as a constant reminder of our roles of stewards, it forces a measure of financial discipline, it moves forward the work of salvation, etc.

 

I confess that I don't have the same understanding of the garments.  Most often, clothing and grooming commandments are external and serve as a "marker" to others within (or even outside) of the tribe.  If I remember correctly, members of a priestly class were required to wear certain "vestments" but that requirement didn't apply to the entire tribe.  In our Church, the garment requirement applies to the highest leaders and the most lowly of priesthood holders, and even ... gasp ... women.  Now, perhaps I've just missing something here.  Earlier posts have provided resources that might have the answers I seek (although the Cliffnotes version would be greatly appreciated ... hint-hint).

 

In my more skeptical days (and yes, I was once "worse" than this), I was pretty sure that the garment requirement was a way of building up to the "Big Ask."  For example, a traveling preacher does not start his revival sermon by passing around the collection plate.  If he did, it would come back nearly empty.  Instead, he builds up to the big ask by getting smaller levels of commitment from his soon-to-be benefactors.  "Raise your hands high in the air if you love Jesus!" "Tap your neighbor on the shoulder and say, 'He loves you too!'" "Empty your the contents of your purse into the offering basket." "Sell all of your belongings and let's all move to Peru."  Of course, you former missionaries know nothing about this kind of tactic, but just take my word for it.  It works!

 

So, when I first heard of the garment requirement, I immediately thought, "That's genius!  It's a daily 'little ask.'  'Say your prayers!   Put this on!  And don't forget your tithes ... and fast offerings!'"

 

At this stage of my conversion, I'm sure that the garment is NOT just a cheap ploy to get our tithes.  I am convinced that our leaders have our best interests at heart and want us to experience all the blessings of the Gospel.  Yet, I still partly suspect that the garment requirement MAY be a creation of men -- well-intentioned men who understand that people who continually engage in small acts of obedience are more likely to be obedient in larger matters.

 

Now that I think about it, perhaps it doesn't really matter whether the requirement is of God or of men.  If it helps to build obedience in the "weightier matters of the law," then that should probably be justification enough ... or is it?

 

 

In Isaiah it talks about a "Robe of Righteousness"

 

61:10 "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels."

Edited May 6, 2014 by Duncan

[Pahoran]

When we speak of agency, I can't help but to think of Animal Farm's famous phrase: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." To define agency as the power "to make real choices and be responsible for the consequences thereof" means that an 18th century slave had agency, He could choose to go into the fields or he would be held responsible (I.e,, whipped for doing not doing so). Is this the kind of agency that they fought a war in heaven over?

Yes!

You're getting what I'm saying. Fantastic!

Don't you see what it means? It means that, however humans mistreat each other, we don't have the power to take away anyone else's agency. It is a gift from God, which no-one can take away.

Stone walls do not a prison make

Nor iron bars a cage.

Given our definition of agency, the only situation in which a person doesn't have agency is if they are physically restrained or disabled.

Actually they still have agency even then.

It's immutable. The only person who can take away your agency is you.

And you can only do that by exercising your agency.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

How do I know that the garment requirement comes from God?

***

Now that I think about it, perhaps it doesn't really matter whether the requirement is of God or of men.  If it helps to build obedience in the "weightier matters of the law," then that should probably be justification enough ... or is it?

That is how Heavenly Father teaches faith, tests us and strengthens us (Matt. 25: 21, 23, D&C 117: 10, D&C 124: 113, D&C 132: 53). I think it does obviously matter that the requirement is of God and not of man, but the only way I know it is of God and that it is beneficial is by having tried it in good faith.

 

I converted in college where I was the only member on campus most semesters. I didn’t go to the temple until after graduation. But if I had to weigh the benefit of a few awkward moments with my dorm mates (and it was a co-ed dorm!) with getting to the temple sooner, I’d choose getting to the temple sooner as the far better option.

 

While you have faith to wear them, whatever your conflict is, as you can see, you do change over time as you try to do what is right.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes!

You're getting what I'm saying. Fantastic!

Don't you see what it means? It means that, however humans mistreat each other, we don't have the power to take away anyone else's agency. It is a gift from God, which no-one can take away.

Stone walls do not a prison make

Nor iron bars a cage.

Actually they still have agency even then.

It's immutable. The only person who can take away your agency is you.

And you can only do that by exercising your agency.

Regards,

Pahoran

I am reminded of a Deep Space 9 episode were Commander Worf is fighting against another humanoid. The humanoid thinks he can beat him and tells him to stop fighting after several hours of combat. Warf never does. Finally the humanoid gives up and says, "I cannot beat him". And the moral was that even though Worf was getting his butt handed to him he used his agency to keep doing what he wanted to do which was to keep fighting. His opponent understood that he was physically able to beat him but he could not break his spirit. That agency is not something that can be taken away. It, ironically, is something that you give away through your own actions. No one has power over you expect that which you give them.

[pogi]

How do I know that the garment requirement comes from God?

 

That's a good question, but I think we are all inadequate on this board to give a sufficient answer.  We can give you lots of good reasons to wear the garment with its layers of symbolism and constant reminder, but I don't think that is what you are looking for.  That's a personal spiritual quest that you have to take on your own.  I suggest a good walk-about. 

[cinepro]

I am reminded of a Deep Space 9 episode were Commander Worf is fighting against another humanoid. The humanoid thinks he can beat him and tells him to stop fighting after several hours of combat. Warf never does. Finally the humanoid gives up and says, "I cannot beat him". And the moral was that even though Worf was getting his butt handed to him he used his agency to keep doing what he wanted to do which was to keep fighting. His opponent understood that he was physically able to beat him but he could not break his spirit. That agency is not something that can be taken away. It, ironically, is something that you give away through your own actions. No one has power over you expect that which you give them.

 

I either don't get it, or it's not true.  People have stuff happen to them all the time that impedes on their "agency."