The Very Reverent Garment Poll For Members

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

So it appears, then, that you're not really seeking knowledge so much as pushing a viewpoint.

[LOSTONE]

Very good point about the clothing JLHPROF. Insightful. Thanks.

[LOSTONE]

I sought knowledge and knowledge is what I found in the reply given by JHLPROF.

[Scott Lloyd]

I sought knowledge and knowledge is what I found in the reply given by JHLPROF.

Good. So all is copacetic then.

[KevinG]

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

 

Another option is God reveals the purpose and man creates the symbol to conform to that purpose.  Did god design the bronze serpent or direct that one be made and leave the form of it up to the artist?

 

This distinction is significant.  After soldiers left for WWII it was discovered that the one piece garment was very difficult for soldiers to wear and function in combat units.  The garment design was then modified to allow two piece garments.  Today a soldier can have the garment manufactured in a way that is indistinguishable to other soldiers, yet still contains the symbolism that is important.

 

Focusing on non-essential things like hems, one or two piece, or other non-doctrinal aspects of the garment can, as Scott pointed out, be more of a distraction than help, when it comes to understanding their function and purpose.  

Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG

[LOSTONE]

KevinG, You also gave a very good reply I find insightful. Thanks. My intent was to seek and in these replies, I do find the wisdom.

[KevinG]

KevinG, You also gave a very good reply I find insightful. Thanks. My intent was to seek and in these replies, I do find the wisdom.

 

Welcome.  Please excuse my sometimes cynical outlook.  I've been trolled a lot.  I'm glad I could help give some insight, and that I actually answered your question.

[JLHPROF]

Well, the poll continues, but I think it's safe to say that I am in the minority of members in how much significance beyond symbolic reminders I place on the garment.  I'm glad I see more than symbol of covenant in them, but I am surprised how few others do.

 

I also think it's safe to say that the variations in importance are significant amongst even this small slice of membership.

 

Very interesting responses.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I also think it's safe to say that the variations in importance are significant amongst even this small slice of membership.

 

Perhaps that's because not everything appertaining thereto is spelled out literally. I believe it is not intended to be so. As with much of the scriptures, there is much that we are left to discover and conclude on our own through personal pondering guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

I'm curious, though: You indicated in your own response that you believe the garment provides physical as well as spiritual protection. Does that mean you think it always provides physical protection, or is it more like I suggested earlier, that it might on occasion do so, but it is transparently obvious that this is not always the case?

Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Well, the poll continues, but I think it's safe to say that I am in the minority of members in how much significance beyond symbolic reminders I place on the garment.  I'm glad I see more than symbol of covenant in them, but I am surprised how few others do.

 

I also think it's safe to say that the variations in importance are significant amongst even this small slice of membership.

 

Very interesting responses.

 

Without getting too far into sacred or personal information, can you elaborate on what significance you place, that have not been shared by this admittedly small slice of members?

 

I sincerely suspect my learning about temple and holy garments in the scriptures is limited, so I may not have knowledge you do.  

 

If you can't elaborate without casting pearls to be trampled then don't, but if you can I'd like to learn.

[JLHPROF]

Without getting too far into sacred or personal information, can you elaborate on what significance you place, that have not been shared by this admittedly small slice of members?

 

I sincerely suspect my learning about temple and holy garments in the scriptures is limited, so I may not have knowledge you do.  

 

If you can't elaborate without casting pearls to be trampled then don't, but if you can I'd like to learn.

 

After some of the recent ferocious responses to my personal beliefs (especially that don't 100% match "official" doctrine) I'm not sure I want to stick my neck out.

 

But one I will stick my neck out again on, is the blessing of protection against the destroyer/adversary promised with the wearing of the garment.  I firmly believe that and would say that those who don't either didn't listen to or didn't believe the promise given in the temple.  It's pretty clear.

Basically, if it is possible for the destroyer to hurt you physically, then the garment can protect you from that.  If it is possible for the destroyer to hurt you spiritually (with temptation) then the garment can protect you from that.

 

It doesn't protect you from all the dangers of mortality.  People wearing garments can be hurt, injured and ill just as anyone else.  But not every hurt, injury or ill comes from the adversary.  Some are just life.  Sometimes it's time for people to return home to Heavenly Father.  But I'll take all the protection against the attacks of adversary I can get.

 

I do have other beliefs concerning the garment that this poll would indicate might not be well received.

[JLHPROF]

Perhaps that's because not everything appertaining thereto is spelled out literally. I believe it is not intended to be so. As with much of the scriptures, there is much that we are left to discover and conclude on our own through personal pondering guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

I'm curious, though: You indicated in your own response that you believe the garment provides physical as well as spiritual protection. Does that mean you think it always provides physical protection, or is it more like I suggested earlier, that it might on occasion do so, but it is transparently obvious that this is not always the case?

 

Yes, I agree with everything you said here.

Some things I firmly believe about the garment are not spelled out literally, but the scriptures hint loudly at SO many things.

 

And no, I don't believe the garment always provides physical protection.  I do believe it provided protection against physical assaults from the adversary (which are very real, and not always spiritual).  But of course they don't make you bulletproof when your buddy decides to test them out.

[Scott Lloyd]

After some of the recent ferocious responses to my personal beliefs (especially that don't 100% match "official" doctrine) I'm not sure I want to stick my neck out.

 

But one I will stick my neck out again on, is the blessing of protection against the destroyer/adversary promised with the wearing of the garment.  I firmly believe that and would say that those who don't either didn't listen to or didn't believe the promise given in the temple.  It's pretty clear.

Basically, if it is possible for the destroyer to hurt you physically, then the garment can protect you from that.  If it is possible for the destroyer to hurt you spiritually (with temptation) then the garment can protect you from that.

 

It doesn't protect you from all the dangers of mortality.  People wearing garments can be hurt, injured and ill just as anyone else.  But not every hurt, injury or ill comes from the adversary.  Some are just life.  Sometimes it's time for people to return home to Heavenly Father.  But I'll take all the protection against the attacks of adversary I can get.

 

I do have other beliefs concerning the garment that this poll would indicate might not be well received.

I don't see anything here I can't agree with.

[Kenngo1969]

I really hate to seem as though I'm simply engaging in weaselly hairsplitting, but I honestly think that the garment can provide protection under any of the circumstances listed in the first three options to that question, depending on the circumstances. However, in cases of physical protection, I think it's simply a matter that those who tell don't know, and those who know don't tell.  I don't understand all of the reasons why what has happened to me in this life has happened to me, and I'm certainly not going to presume to know that for anyone else.  I honestly believe, though, that what the Lord told Joseph Smith applies to all of us, unless we consciously do something that may shorten our lifespan: "Thy days are known, and they shall not be numbered less."  And while I can understand those who feel to question God's design when someone departs this life under what seem to be unfair circumstances, while I lack the infinite mind that would enable me fully to comprehend this, I do believe that "All flesh is in [God's] hand." 

[JLHPROF]

I don't see anything here I can't agree with.

 

Then you should be able to select choice #2 from question 1.

[KevinG]

After some of the recent ferocious responses to my personal beliefs (especially that don't 100% match "official" doctrine) I'm not sure I want to stick my neck out.

 

But one I will stick my neck out again on, is the blessing of protection against the destroyer/adversary promised with the wearing of the garment.  I firmly believe that and would say that those who don't either didn't listen to or didn't believe the promise given in the temple.  It's pretty clear.

Basically, if it is possible for the destroyer to hurt you physically, then the garment can protect you from that.  If it is possible for the destroyer to hurt you spiritually (with temptation) then the garment can protect you from that.

 

It doesn't protect you from all the dangers of mortality.  People wearing garments can be hurt, injured and ill just as anyone else.  But not every hurt, injury or ill comes from the adversary.  Some are just life.  Sometimes it's time for people to return home to Heavenly Father.  But I'll take all the protection against the attacks of adversary I can get.

 

I do have other beliefs concerning the garment that this poll would indicate might not be well received.

 

Thank you.  Good food for thought.  I need to get back to the temple.  I let financial obligations and debt interfere with my tithing, a situation I am correcting this year.  But I'm missing some of the great insights from those ordinances and teachings that fade over time.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then you should be able to select choice #2 from question 1.

Choice #2 doesn't cover all the possibilities I see. I think it might provide protection against injury that is not adversary-induced. Does it do so in every instance? Obviously not.

[Thinking]

There are many faith promoting stories circulating about the physical protection that the garment can provide. This belief may have started with the fact that Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his garments when he was murdered. J. Willard Marriott told a story to Mike Wallace about the physical protection they provided to him.

 

Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments?
Marriott: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm.
Wallace: Really?
Marriott: Uh-huh. I was in a very serious boat accident. Fire--boat was on fire, I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off of me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned.
Wallace: And you believe it was the sacred undergarments.
Marriott: I do. Particularly on my legs, because my pants were gone, but my undergarments were not singed. ("60 Minutes" program on the LDS Church. Aired on CBS TV, April 7, 1996)

[KevinG]

I have a similar story regarding a chainsaw.  But sharing it would give the impression God protected me from my own abject stupidity, and I'm not sure that's a good lesson for public consumption.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are many faith promoting stories circulating about the physical protection that the garment can provide. This belief may have started with the fact that Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his garments when he was murdered. J. Willard Marriott told a story to Mike Wallace about the physical protection they provided to him.

 

Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments?

Marriott: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm.

Wallace: Really?

Marriott: Uh-huh. I was in a very serious boat accident. Fire--boat was on fire, I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off of me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned.

Wallace: And you believe it was the sacred undergarments.

Marriott: I do. Particularly on my legs, because my pants were gone, but my undergarments were not singed. ("60 Minutes" program on the LDS Church. Aired on CBS TV, April 7, 1996)

I recall from that interview that the Church leaders interviewed were more circumspect about relating such things than were the non-official interviewees such as Marriott and Steve Young. I believe that such incidents generally should not be spread far and wide. They feed folklore and are prone to misinterpretation by an outside public.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have a similar story regarding a chainsaw.  But sharing it would give the impression God protected me from my own abject stupidity, and I'm not sure that's a good lesson for public consumption.

I believe, on occasion, that a merciful Father will protect us from our own foolishness -- but that's beside the point.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

I believe, on occasion, that a merciful father will protect us from our own foolishness -- but that's beside the point.

 

I know longer believe that, I know!  

Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG

[mnn727]

What kind of protection are they? Spiritual and Symbolic - they would be that last thing you would remove to partake of sexual sin, so very symbolic.

[Thinking]

I believe, on occasion, that a merciful father will protect us from our own foolishness -- but that's beside the point.

 

Do you think that the merciful Father who protects us cares whether the garment is being worn?

 

Perhaps a real miracle occurred, and credit is being given to the wrong thing.

 

As far as real physical protection, there will be some natural protection from the elements simply because the garment is well...a garment. If I went sunbathing with only garments on (sorry for that image), would I get sunburned underneath the garment?

Edited October 21, 2014 by Thinking

[pocogirl]

My garment saved me from lightning, my body felt like it was on fire all except where my garment covered.