The Very Reverent Garment Poll For Members

[pogi]

Here is one problem I have with believing in the physical protection of garments.  Any acute care RN in Utah can testify that people wearing the garment actually do get injured and killed in accidents.  Are we to assume then that anyone who has received physical injury causing harm or death while wearing the garments must not be keeping their covenants?  That's the only assumption we can come to if the word "promise" means anything and we take it literally.  Or, we can conclude it is symbolic. 

Edited October 30, 2014 by pogi

[Silhouette]

Here is one problem I have with believing in the physical protection of garments. Any acute care RN in Utah can testify that righteous garment wearers are just as prone to accident and injury as anyone else. Are we to assume then that anyone who has received physical injury causing harm or death while wearing the garments must not be keeping their covenants?

I don't know the exact quote or where it can be found, but isn't there something about Priesthood healing blessings will work according to faith, "unless it is their appointed time to die?" I know I have read something like that in our Church.

Anyway, I have always figured garments work the same way. They can protect a person, "unless it is their appointed time to die." I put quotation marks but I'm not sure the exact phrasing is correct. I'd have used italics instead, but can't do that on my phone.

I will try to find the exact passage and where it is from, and post the source.

Ok, it's in the Doctrine and Covenants, 42:48.

Again, not that this verse is talking about garments...this is just how I personally have viewed to be the reason people can die from injury while wearing their garments. It's their "appointed time". I do not claim that this is the correct interpretation of the sited scripture. This is strictly my own opinion/thought on the matter being discussed.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Silhouette

[pogi]

I don't know the exact quote or where it can be found, but isn't there something about Priesthood healing blessings will work according to faith, "unless it is their appointed time to die?" I know I have read something like that in our Church.

Anyway, I have always figured garments work the same way. They can protect a person, "unless it is their appointed time to die." I put quotation marks but I'm not sure the exact phrasing is correct. I'd have used italics instead, but can't do that on my phone.

I will try to find the exact passage and where it is from, and post the source.

 

Thanks for sharing.  As much as I want to believe in the literal physical protection, I don't want to believe that everyone who is physically injured in an accident is not faithful. 

[Silhouette]

Thanks for sharing. As much as I want to believe in the literal physical protection, I don't want to believe that everyone who is physically injured in an accident is not faithful.

I don't think that, either. As for injuries where the person lives, but injuries are major, I can't address that because I've never thought of it that way. The way I interpret it is that if the person doesn't die from the injury, the garments have done their job in the physical protection department. Maybe too black and white or too simplistic, I don't know. Again, the source: Doctrine and Covenants 42:48 talking about someone's appointed time to die.

My interpretation about the physical protection aspect of the garments may be way off, but it comforts me.

[pogi]

I don't think that, either. As for injuries where the person lives, but injuries are major, I can't address that because I've never thought of it that way. The way I interpret it is that if the person doesn't die from the injury, the garments have done their job in the physical protection department. Maybe too black and white or too simplistic, I don't know. Again, the source: Doctrine and Covenants 42:48 talking about someone's appointed time to die.

My interpretation about the physical protection aspect of the garments may be way off, but it comforts me.

 

I have always understood the promise to protect against physical injury as well as death.  That certainly is a belief among many members if it is not a church teaching.

[Silhouette]

I have always understood the promise to protect against physical injury as well as death. That certainly is a belief among many members if it is not a church teaching.

Agreed. I can't address the injury issue because in my little mind, I have interpreted "protection" as an either/or scenario. Which I'm sure is a flawed way to view it, as your post feels more correct, but I can't reconcile it with my interpretation yet.

[Kiwi]

Q1 What kind of "protection" do you believe garments offer?

 

Other: In the account of Jesus healing the man born blind (see John 9), he spat on the ground, made clay of the dirt and spittle, and anointed the mans eyes with it. He then instructed the man to go wash in the pool of Siloam, and when he did the man received his sight. What caused the healing? Did the Saviour's spit contain healing properties associated with his divinity? Did the dirt or water in the pool of Siloam have some kind of medicinal qualities? Or was it perhaps some kind of chemical reaction caused by the combination of the chemical makeup of the particular spit, dirt and water? I believe that neither the spit dirt or water had any healing properties at all, but that the man's healing came about because of his exact obedience to the Saviour, his faith to be healed, and his apparent worthiness to receive that blessing.

 

In much the same way, the actual fabric of the sacred undergarments has no supernatural properties, and provides no more physical or spiritual protection than any other clothing would do. The wearing of the sacred undergarments is an "outward expression of an inner commitment". It demonstrates obedience and reminds the wearer of the sacred covenants he/she has made. Any associated protection, whether it be physical or spiritual, is purely a result of obedience to wearing the undergarments, the honouring of sacred covenants, the exercise of faith, and generally being worthy of receiving the protective blessings the Lord sees fit to bestow on the wearer.

 

"The garment is inadequate without the thing that it signifies. ... it won't protect you unless you're true and faithful to your caovenant, and only to the degree to which you don't dishonour your garment has it any significance at all. Only on that condition that you don't dishonour it, that you're pure, that you are true and faithful to your covenant--does the garment have any benefit." Hugh Nibley

 

Q2 My belief or understanding on the origin and design of Garments

 

Other: As to their origin in this dispensation, I've never seen or heard of any official Church account of their origin. (If anyone knows of any I'd love to read about it). As to their design, it is my understanding that originally they weren't purpose-made, but that the sacred symbols were simply stitched into the "long johns" which were the regular underwear worn in that era. The design has slowly evolved to accommodate comfort and fashion, but only within the bounds of modesty.

 

Q3 Changes to the garments can be made

 

Other: Church members are instructed not to alter the garments in any way, but as indicated above, the design of garments has evolved over the years. I'm not aware of any official Church statement regarding any direct revelation associated with these changes, but they were authorised by 15 men whom we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators. I trust that unanimous decisions made by these men would not be in direct conflict with the will of the Lord.

[JLHPROF]

Q1 What kind of "protection" do you believe garments offer?

 

Other: In the account of Jesus healing the man born blind (see John 9), he spat on the ground, made clay of the dirt and spittle, and anointed the mans eyes with it. He then instructed the man to go wash in the pool of Siloam, and when he did the man received his sight. What caused the healing? Did the Saviour's spit contain healing properties associated with his divinity? Did the dirt or water in the pool of Siloam have some kind of medicinal qualities? Or was it perhaps some kind of chemical reaction caused by the combination of the chemical makeup of the particular spit, dirt and water? I believe that neither the spit dirt or water had any healing properties at all, but that the man's healing came about because of his exact obedience to the Saviour, his faith to be healed, and his apparent worthiness to receive that blessing.

 

In much the same way, the actual fabric of the sacred undergarments has no supernatural properties, and provides no more physical or spiritual protection than any other clothing would do. The wearing of the sacred undergarments is an "outward expression of an inner commitment". It demonstrates obedience and reminds the wearer of the sacred covenants he/she has made. Any associated protection, whether it be physical or spiritual, is purely a result of obedience to wearing the undergarments, the honouring of sacred covenants, the exercise of faith, and generally being worthy of receiving the protective blessings the Lord sees fit to bestow on the wearer.

 

"The garment is inadequate without the thing that it signifies. ... it won't protect you unless you're true and faithful to your caovenant, and only to the degree to which you don't dishonour your garment has it any significance at all. Only on that condition that you don't dishonour it, that you're pure, that you are true and faithful to your covenant--does the garment have any benefit." Hugh Nibley

 

Well of course this is true, but this is such semantics.  If you can say that wearing the garment (in obedience to your covenants) grants you protection under that covenant.  And if you can say that NOT wearing your garments or dishonouring them removes the protection of that covenant.  Then logically wearing garments protects, not wearing garments doesn't protect.  But of course it's not the fabric itself - I don't think anyone has ever claimed it was the actual fabric.

 

 

Q2 My belief or understanding on the origin and design of Garments

 

Other: As to their origin in this dispensation, I've never seen or heard of any official Church account of their origin. (If anyone knows of any I'd love to read about it). As to their design, it is my understanding that originally they weren't purpose-made, but that the sacred symbols were simply stitched into the "long johns" which were the regular underwear worn in that era. The design has slowly evolved to accommodate comfort and fashion, but only within the bounds of modesty.

 

I posted pretty much every account of the garment origins above.  The Church has never made an official claim, but that doesn't prevent one of the historical anecdotes being true.  And as for the "evolution" - many items representing blessings were removed.

 

Q3 Changes to the garments can be made

 

Other: Church members are instructed not to alter the garments in any way, but as indicated above, the design of garments has evolved over the years. I'm not aware of any official Church statement regarding any direct revelation associated with these changes, but they were authorised by 15 men whom we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators. I trust that unanimous decisions made by these men would not be in direct conflict with the will of the Lord.

 

I trust that when God says do something we do it.  And we'd better not vary from that unless God gives permission.  If the design is unimportant, only the marks, then there is no need to keep to ANY official Church design.  You can have the marks placed on ANY clothing.  If you don't like the styles currently offered by the Church, just if you can have the marks added to the clothing of your choice.

 

[mfbukowski]

Here is one problem I have with believing in the physical protection of garments.  Any acute care RN in Utah can testify that people wearing the garment actually do get injured and killed in accidents.  Are we to assume then that anyone who has received physical injury causing harm or death while wearing the garments must not be keeping their covenants?  That's the only assumption we can come to if the word "promise" means anything and we take it literally.  Or, we can conclude it is symbolic. 

Why does it have to be one or the other? Do all blessings come on demand the way we want them?

Edited November 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't think that, either. As for injuries where the person lives, but injuries are major, I can't address that because I've never thought of it that way. The way I interpret it is that if the person doesn't die from the injury, the garments have done their job in the physical protection department. Maybe too black and white or too simplistic, I don't know. Again, the source: Doctrine and Covenants 42:48 talking about someone's appointed time to die.

My interpretation about the physical protection aspect of the garments may be way off, but it comforts me.

It should.

 

I am convinced my garments saved my life, or at least saved me from serious injury, falling off a roof.  I am not going to go into the story here because like all matters of faith and all miracles, there are different ways to interpret the "data".

 

We can look at the world with a sense of wonder, believing in miracles and having faith, and we will see them.  Or we can look at the world without faith and see nothing miraculous.

 

The kindom of heaven is within us, as is our choice in how to interpret the world and our experiences.  I choose to see miracles.

[mfbukowski]

I have always understood the promise to protect against physical injury as well as death.  That certainly is a belief among many members if it is not a church teaching.

What is and what is not a "church teaching" is of course subject to interpretation, as are most things in life.

[mfbukowski]

Agreed. I can't address the injury issue because in my little mind, I have interpreted "protection" as an either/or scenario. Which I'm sure is a flawed way to view it, as your post feels more correct, but I can't reconcile it with my interpretation yet.

There are protections against Satan, whatever that means, and there are protections against problems we bring on ourselves, through stupidity, drunk driving, bad choices, bad people, etc etc.

 

Garments are not magic.  They are not a magic talisman.  The don't suddenly turn ot steel for a nanosecond and protect us against bullets, or turn us into Superman.

 

Their protection is ruled by the rules of Heaven, and is totally unpredictable according to our reckoning.  Why are some healed and some not?  Why do some receive visions and others do not?

 

I don't know.  We will never know.   It's up to the Powers of Heaven.  But are blessings and protection of garments, visions, covenants and blessings from God "real"?   Absolutely.

 

No one will ever convince me otherwise because I have experienced them.

[mfbukowski]

Q1 What kind of "protection" do you believe garments offer?

 

Other: In the account of Jesus healing the man born blind (see John 9), he spat on the ground, made clay of the dirt and spittle, and anointed the mans eyes with it. He then instructed the man to go wash in the pool of Siloam, and when he did the man received his sight. What caused the healing? Did the Saviour's spit contain healing properties associated with his divinity? Did the dirt or water in the pool of Siloam have some kind of medicinal qualities? Or was it perhaps some kind of chemical reaction caused by the combination of the chemical makeup of the particular spit, dirt and water? I believe that neither the spit dirt or water had any healing properties at all, but that the man's healing came about because of his exact obedience to the Saviour, his faith to be healed, and his apparent worthiness to receive that blessing.

 

In much the same way, the actual fabric of the sacred undergarments has no supernatural properties, and provides no more physical or spiritual protection than any other clothing would do. The wearing of the sacred undergarments is an "outward expression of an inner commitment". It demonstrates obedience and reminds the wearer of the sacred covenants he/she has made. Any associated protection, whether it be physical or spiritual, is purely a result of obedience to wearing the undergarments, the honouring of sacred covenants, the exercise of faith, and generally being worthy of receiving the protective blessings the Lord sees fit to bestow on the wearer.

 

"The garment is inadequate without the thing that it signifies. ... it won't protect you unless you're true and faithful to your caovenant, and only to the degree to which you don't dishonour your garment has it any significance at all. Only on that condition that you don't dishonour it, that you're pure, that you are true and faithful to your covenant--does the garment have any benefit." Hugh Nibley

 

Q2 My belief or understanding on the origin and design of Garments

 

Other: As to their origin in this dispensation, I've never seen or heard of any official Church account of their origin. (If anyone knows of any I'd love to read about it). As to their design, it is my understanding that originally they weren't purpose-made, but that the sacred symbols were simply stitched into the "long johns" which were the regular underwear worn in that era. The design has slowly evolved to accommodate comfort and fashion, but only within the bounds of modesty.

 

Q3 Changes to the garments can be made

 

Other: Church members are instructed not to alter the garments in any way, but as indicated above, the design of garments has evolved over the years. I'm not aware of any official Church statement regarding any direct revelation associated with these changes, but they were authorised by 15 men whom we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators. I trust that unanimous decisions made by these men would not be in direct conflict with the will of the Lord.

That quote shows you know your stuff and are very familiar with these matters.   I agree with you completely, and welcome to the board

[mfbukowski]

I trust that when God says do something we do it.  And we'd better not vary from that unless God gives permission.  If the design is unimportant, only the marks, then there is no need to keep to ANY official Church design.  You can have the marks placed on ANY clothing.  If you don't like the styles currently offered by the Church, just if you can have the marks added to the clothing of your choice.

 

In fact, that is what is done in the military when the type of underwear is part of the uniform, or is necessary for safety, etc.

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/callings/military/military-garment-special-orders.pdf?lang=eng

 

What's your point?  That the design is important or unimportant?

Edited November 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

In fact, that is what is done in the military when the type of underwear is part of the uniform, or is necessary for safety, etc.

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/callings/military/military-garment-special-orders.pdf?lang=eng

 

What's your point?  That the design is important or unimportant?

Important. The design is scriptural (or at least alluded to).

[pogi]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Do all blessings come on demand the way we want them?

 

I agree that some promises and blessings take time and are incremental and may not come in the way you expect.  Other promises are more specific and direct.  You either receive it or you don't.  The promise of physical protection is one that you either receive or you don't. For example, the promise that God gave the Israelites that if they would keep their eyes on the serpent raised on the staff, they would not get bit by the serpents.  If you obey, you should absolutely expect the Lord to keep his end of the bargain; not after getting bit once or twice even though you are looking at the staff, but exactly as he promised. 

 

To me a promise is no good without a guarantee.  If I am promised physical protection IF I keep my covenants, wear the garments faithfully and am worthy to receive the blessings, how can I learn to trust in God if I keep my end of the bargain yet still receive physical injury or harm?  If you don't receive it, the only conclusions are that you are not worthy or not faithful.  Another possible conclusion is that it simply symbolic.  Finally, you could conclude that God does not keep his promises.  There are no other conclusion with this type of promise. 

Edited November 1, 2014 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

To me a promise is no good without a guarantee.

You might want to think about that one.  First, the "promise" is not specified as a promise any more than any other blessing.

 

No endowed person has ever had any diseases of the bone marrow?  All are fertile? All the blessings of Oath and Covenant are guarantees? Every single blessing of the initiatories come with a guarantee?

 

If one gets a blessing of the sick, everyone is healed?   Does this mean all these "promises" are null and void or "symbolic" because they happen in God's time and God's way?

 

You definitely might want to think that through.  God doesn't give guarantees.  You don't push a button to make him jump and he answers "How high"?   It is a wicked and adulterous generation.......   oh, never mind.

Edited November 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Important. The design is scriptural (or at least alluded to).

I see.   And where is that?  The marks and their placement is scriptural?  As my previous link shows, that is all that is important.  We have different fabrics, different styles and all that is in the scriptures?

 

I would like to see that scripture.  I will settle for the one that describes just the marks and their placement.

Edited November 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

I see.   And where is that?  The marks and their placement is scriptural?  As my previous link shows, that is all that is important.  We have different fabrics, different styles and all that is in the scriptures?

 

I would like to see that scripture.  I will settle for the one that describes just the marks and their placement.

 

Ok, if I'm arguing that the design OTHER than the marks matters, why on earth would I need to provide a scripture about the placement of the marks?

That makes no sense.

[mfbukowski]

Not important.

Edited November 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

Design, some similarities to Masonic novice clothing

[pogi]

You might want to think about that one.  First, the "promise" is not specified as a promise any more than any other blessing.

 

For me, a promise is law when made by the Lord.  That is the foundation of trust and faith - that we can expect God to do as he says as we keep our end of the covenant.  We should always trust in God to follow through with his promises.  If a promised blessing does not happen, we can be assured that it was not the Lord's fault and there is another explanation.

 

D&C 82:10.   “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.”

 

This verse shows a part of God’s basic nature: the way He deals with His children and the reason they can trust Him. Elder James E. Talmage said: “‘Mormonism’ has taught me that God holds himself accountable to law even as he expects us to do. He has set us the example in obedience to law. I know that to say this would have been heresy a few decades ago. But we have the divine word for it: ‘I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.’ (Doc. and Cov. 82:10.) He operates by law and not by arbitrariness or caprice.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1930, p. 96.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-81-89/section-82-i-the-lord-am-bound-when-ye-do-what-i-say?lang=eng

 

[mfbukowski]

 

For me, a promise is law when made by the Lord.  That is the foundation of trust and faith - that we can expect God to do as he says as we keep our end of the covenant.  We should always trust in God to follow through with his promises.  If a promised blessing does not happen, we can be assured that it was not the Lord's fault and there is another explanation.

 

To me a promise is no good without a guarantee.

Very confusing.  Pick a story and stick to it.

 

So God makes promises, but if he cannot honor the guarantee, it's not his fault.

 

Some guarantee.  But I guess after all he can't always do what he says.  Or something.

[mfbukowski]

All I am looking for is a little consistency on this board.

 

If you take a position and say something, think it through and back it up.  Is that too much to ask?  Or if you don't, say "Oops - I goofed".  No one cares.

[pogi]

Very confusing.  Pick a story and stick to it.

 

So God makes promises, but if he cannot honor the guarantee, it's not his fault.

 

Some guarantee.  But I guess after all he can't always do what he says.  Or something.

 

What is confusing exactly?  In both quotes I am stating that the Lord doesn't make promises that he doesn't keep - He is bound when we do what He says.  It is guaranteed, it is as good as law.  It is not some watered down and arbitrary thing.    I hope that clears it up.