The Very Reverent Garment Poll For Members

[JLHPROF]

In light of several discussions recently, just wanted to do a quick poll of member here.

And try to keep the responses as respectful as we can.

 

And I specifically put an "OTHER" category on each one lest I be accused of rigging answers.  Please answer as completely as you are comfortable.

Edited October 21, 2014 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

If Joseph's coat of many colors was a garment then there is scriptural precedent for tie dying garments.

[JLHPROF]

If Joseph's coat of many colors was a garment then there is scriptural precedent for tie dying garments.

 

I think it was probably more likely temple robes of some sort, perhaps similar to those the Levites wore.

Either that or it was a symbol of birthright and not a garment (especially given the explanation we receive when we put on the garment).

[KevinG]

I believe the primary and practical purpose of the garment is to remind us of our covenants, and protect us from harm by keeping us modest, and faithful to the guidance of Heavenly Father.  

 

I have had personal experiences that I cannot explain regarding physical harm and the garment.  However, it is intensely personal, not something I'd preach over the pulpit, and can be attributed to faith and obedience to God's commandments, as much as the physical garment itself.

 

Just as seer stones can be an object of focus for worship and communion with God, symbols of a wide variety can provide that function for us.  However, I'm happy to wear cotton vestments as opposed to lugging around a bronze serpent.

[KevinG]

If Joseph's coat of many colors was a garment then there is scriptural precedent for tie dying garments.

 

You my friend are freaking brilliant.  I mean that.

[Silhouette]

I chose "Other" about the origin of the garments because I've never given any thought to where the idea came from. For me, they just ARE.

[KevinG]

I chose "Other" about the origin of the garments because I've never given any thought to where the idea came from. For me, they just ARE.

 

I feel the same way until I find that the white load I asked my kids to do, was not done, and I am having to scramble for something clean to wear.   

[JLHPROF]

Thanks for the responses so far everyone.  The results (and variety of opinion) are fascinating.

[stemelbow]

I selected "other" on all mostly because I don't think there is anything hard and fast or completely definitive on any of these.

I selected other on question 1, because I grant they may offer protection to some, they haven't for me. I don't know that they protect, or if such stories of protection are coincidental and are confirmation bias. I do think they are symbolic, but don't rule out protection--some seem certain there is protection associated.

I selected other in question 2 because I think they could be inspired but am not sure they are. It seems more important that they represent something to the individual who respects them, than that they were crafted by God in some way. So I can't be sure.

I selected other in question 3 because I think it could be any or all of the above.

[JLHPROF]

I selected "other" on all mostly because I don't think there is anything hard and fast or completely definitive on any of these.

I selected other on question 1, because I grant they may offer protection to some, they haven't for me. I don't know that they protect, or if such stories of protection are coincidental and are confirmation bias. I do think they are symbolic, but don't rule out protection--some seem certain there is protection associated.

 

If you feel that you have not received protection of any sort, how do you account for the promise made in the temple when they are given you.  Either God promised you some protection or didn't.

I selected other in question 2 because I think they could be inspired but am not sure they are. It seems more important that they represent something to the individual who respects them, than that they were crafted by God in some way. So I can't be sure.

I think there are conflicting accounts so it's not 100% positive, but I lean towards a certain account.

I selected other in question 3 because I think it could be any or all of the above.

I think if you had a definite opinion on question 2, then your answer to question 3 would have to change.

 

Thanks for the responses!

 

 

[KevinG]

Insuring modesty is a protection from compromising our values to fashion trends.  Reminding us of covenants is a protection from neglecting the promises we made.

 

When discussing protection we need to distinguish between physical or supernatural barriers to bodily harm and the more typical but important protections that s physical symbol of our faith can provide.

[Scott Lloyd]

Aside from being way too complicated and calling for rank speculation, my chief complaint about this poll is in the first response.

 

Saying that the garment provides both spiritual and physical protection, with no qualifier, is too absolute. One can believe that it possibly provides physical protection only on occasion. But to say this is always the case is absurd on its face, as there have been many, many faithful people who, while wearing the garment, have been injured or killed.

[stemelbow]

If you feel that you have not received protection of any sort, how do you account for the promise made in the temple when they are given you. Either God promised you some protection or didn't.

Either they have protected me and I have not noticed, or I simply haven't been protected by them as yet and that promise will be fulfilled in the future.

I think there are conflicting accounts so it's not 100% positive, but I lean towards a certain account.

Ok

I think if you had a definite opinion on question 2, then your answer to question 3 would have to change.

Thanks for the responses!

Maybe.

[KevinG]

Aside from being way too complicated and calling for rank speculation, my chief complaint about this poll is in the first response.

 

Saying that the garment provides both spiritual and physical protection, with no qualifier, is too absolute. One can believe that it possibly provides physical protection only on occasion. But to say this is always the case is absurd on its face, as there have been many, many faithful people who, while wearing the garment, have been injured or killed.

 

I was impaled once while wearing the garment, but in fairness the fence post went through me knee under the hem of the garment.  The concussions were also not covered by the magical properties of my underwear.

[stemelbow]

I was impaled once while wearing the garment, but in fairness the fence post went through me knee under the hem of the garment.  The concussions were also not covered by the magical properties of my underwear.

That's why the garment should be worn below the knee, I guess.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was impaled once while wearing the garment, but in fairness the fence post went through me knee under the hem of the garment.  The concussions were also not covered by the magical properties of my underwear.

Years ago, when I was working for a small-town newspaper, my editor, a less-active Church member at the time, belonged to a bike club. On one of their treks one of the riders had an accident with an injury that required ER treatment but not hospitalization.

 

My editor said that someone on the trek remarked that it was a good thing he was wearing his garment, to which my editor commented that it would have been even better had he been wearing a helmet.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

I chose other on question 1 because we know whether it is spiritual or temporal it is the same, but I'm not sure how much that goes along with the meaning of the question you are asking. I don't doubt that there is physical protection, I'm just unsure what kind of physical protection we might be promised and I'm not positive it is the same kind that goes along with stories of how so and so had third degrees burns until it reached a well defined garment line.

As far as the temple goes, I would have to hear that again. I'm also not sure if the blessing is the same for women as for men at that part.

I put other on #2 because I also have never thought about it before.

[JLHPROF]

Aside from being way too complicated and calling for rank speculation, my chief complaint about this poll is in the first response.

 

Saying that the garment provides both spiritual and physical protection, with no qualifier, is too absolute. One can believe that it possibly provides physical protection only on occasion. But to say this is always the case is absurd on its face, as there have been many, many faithful people who, while wearing the garment, have been injured or killed.

 

This is NOT asking for doctrine.  It is asking for your personal beliefs.  If you are uncomfortable holding a belief on the subject, feel free to choose other.

 

And I don't think it's "rank speculation" at all.  There are plenty of references on all 3 question topics. 

 

Wanting to qualify every poll question down to the most minute detail is so unnecessary.  This is simply gauging the way members on this board view the garments they have covenanted to wear.  It is not trying to define "official" Mormon belief.  It's purely an opinion poll, with no request for evidence attached.

[LOSTONE]

What clothing is necessary to wear upon entering the Kingdom of Heaven? And to with, if such clothing is not worn, will access to the Kingdom not be granted?

Does clothing matter in the true view of it?

[Scott Lloyd]

What clothing is necessary to wear upon entering the Kingdom of Heaven? And to with, if such clothing is not worn, will access to the Kingdom not be granted?

Does clothing matter in the true view of it?

While I could not express too strongly the importance of following instructions with exactness on sublime matters such as this, I would say there is danger in focusing so literally upon the symbol that one loses sight of the meaning it is intended to represent.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

What clothing is necessary to wear upon entering the Kingdom of Heaven? And to with, if such clothing is not worn, will access to the Kingdom not be granted?

Does clothing matter in the true view of it?

 

Certain activities and authorities come with uniforms.  Can a person be a soldier without a uniform?  Yes.  Is it likely that their authority will be recognized, no.  

 

The temple robes and garments (two different things) have purpose known to those who wear them, and covenants attached.  It is not as simple as "you have to wear this to enter heaven".  In fact if someone thought that they would have completely missed the symbolism and purpose of the Temple ceremonies and symbols.

[LOSTONE]

Ask a question and ye shall be given an answer. I asked and I have been given. This is not to imply the given answer holds any wisdom, just a reply.

[KevinG]

Ask a question and ye shall be given an answer. I asked and I have been given. This is not to imply the given answer holds any wisdom, just a reply.

 

Are you left lacking information you sought?  Please clarify and I will attempt to answer.  

 

However, you must understand that you are asking about a subject that is sacred and personal.  Not all information will be given for your curiosity, but I will attempt to help you understand the concepts behind a garment, or clothing as a symbol of covenants.

 

 

...and a direct answer: No not everyone lacking a temple garment will be banned from Heaven.  But once they get there they may be given one.  

Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG

[LOSTONE]

Clothing used in ceremonies and for symbolic reasons are man made matters of choice, not ones of true necessities or requirements in the final view of the truth. Such clothing may serve more of a distraction than a supportive nature. It it best to focus on the truth than on such man made distractions and choices.

[JLHPROF]

Clothing used in ceremonies and for symbolic reasons are man made matters of choice, not ones of true necessities or requirements in the final view of the truth. Such clothing may serve more of a distraction than a supportive nature. It it best to focus on the truth than on such man made distractions and choices.

 

This is only true if man determines and makes the clothing.  But on occasion (and this is Biblical) God creates and designs the clothing.

Edited October 21, 2014 by JLHPROF