The Very Reverent Garment Poll For Members

[mfbukowski]

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.

Fine.

So you are saying that the Lord guarantees that garments give us protection, that he is bound to do what he says, that it is as good as law, and is not some watered down or some arbitrary or "symbolic" thing.

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.

So what is your point? Is it a promise or not? If it is not, how are the promises made about garments different than others more abstract, like "health in the navel" or other blessings of tithing or the initiatory blessings?

In short, can we trust the word of the Lord or not? Is any of it guaranteed?

[pogi]

Fine.

So you are saying that the Lord guarantees that garments give us protection, that he is bound to do what he says, that it is as good as law, and is not some watered down or some arbitrary or "symbolic" thing.

So what is your point? Is it a promise or not? If it is not, how are the promises made about garments different than others more abstract, like "health in the navel" or other blessings of tithing or the initiatory blessings?

In short, can we trust the word of the Lord or not? Is any of it guaranteed?

 

I have no doubt of the spiritual protection that the associated covenants from wearing the garment offers.  Yes, I do believe there is a promise, a spiritual one.  Any physical protection that may come is not the result of any promise. 

 

The symbolism comes from, as Elder Russell M. Nelson puts it  "-- using symbolic language -- that "we wear the [temple] garment faithfully as part of the enduring armor of God." (Ensign, May 2001, 32-). Spiritual 'armor' is certainly designed to give a person spiritual protection, not to prevent numerous forms of physical harm."

 

"Temple garments afford protection. I am sure one could go to [the] extreme in worshiping the cloth of which the garment is made, but one could also go to the other extreme. Though generally I think our protection is a mental, spiritual, moral one, yet I am convinced that there could be, and undoubtedly have been, many cases where there has been, through faith, an actual physical protection. So we must not minimize that possibility."

President Kimball here expresses his view that the protection is generally spiritual, though one cannot rule out the possibility that God could grant physical protection as well. Surely the Lord can dispense blessings as He sees fit."

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Garments

 

In other words, the physical protection (if there is any), does not derive from any promise but from the Lord simply dispensing blessings as he sees fit.  This is not the same as a covenant promise where the Lord is bound. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

 

I have no doubt of the spiritual protection that the associated covenants from wearing the garment offers.   I don't remember hearing about any specific physical protection that is promised from wearing the garment.  I believe this to be Mormon folklore originating from personal interpretation of "protection."    

 

The symbolism comes from, as Elder Russell M. Nelson puts it  "-- using symbolic language -- that "we wear the [temple] garment faithfully as part of the enduring armor of God." (Ensign, May 2001, 32-). Spiritual 'armor' is certainly designed to give a person spiritual protection, not to prevent numerous forms of physical harm."

 

"Temple garments afford protection. I am sure one could go to [the] extreme in worshiping the cloth of which the garment is made, but one could also go to the other extreme. Though generally I think our protection is a mental, spiritual, moral one, yet I am convinced that there could be, and undoubtedly have been, many cases where there has been, through faith, an actual physical protection. So we must not minimize that possibility."

President Kimball here expresses his view that the protection is generally spiritual, though one cannot rule out the possibility that God could grant physical protection as well. Surely the Lord can dispense blessings as He sees fit."

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Garments

 

In other words, the physical protection (if there is any), does not derive from any promise but from the Lord simply dispensing blessings as he sees fit.  This is not the same as a covenant promise where the Lord is bound. 

 

What I said in the beginning.

[Kiwi]

JLHPROF, on 31 Oct 2014, said:

 

Quote

 

"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."

 

 

 

I agree that it may just be semantics, but based on the resulting discussion here the phrases "garments protect" and "wearing the garment grants protection under that covenant" can be interpreted quite differently.

 

My emphasis on the fabric itself having no supernatural protective properties, was in response to a number of allusions that some seem to believe that it actually does. (Some of these comments appear to have been made in jest, but they affirm that among LDS there are some who believe this):

 

"I was impaled once while wearing the garment, but in fairness the fence post went through me knee under the hem of the garment."

 

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

 

"I was in a very serious boat accident....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."

 

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

 

In as far as these accounts are accurate, I imagine they have served as immensely faith-promoting experiences for these individuals, and I do not wish to diminish that in any way. I cannot say whether the protection described here was purely circumstantial, (i.e. the extra layer of fabric is what provided the protection), or whether the Lord for whatever reason chose to bless these individuals with an extraordinary faith promoting experience. What I do know is that these extraordinary experiences appear to be very rare, and that not all cases of garment wearers getting hurt or killed can be ascribed to a lack of faith or righteousness. Sometimes the Lord chooses to spare the righteous (see Daniel 3), and sometimes he doesn't (see Alma 14).

 

 

Quote

 

"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."

 

 

I only saw your post regarding the garment origins until after I had posted my original remarks. Thank you for sharing those quotes, though I note some interesting discrepancies:

 

1. The James Allred History says the Prophet came to his grandmother (Elizabeth Warren Allred) to assist him with cutting and sewing the first garments, while the George Albert Smith quote say the first garments were made by Eliza R. Snow and Zina Young under the direction of the Prophet. Although I don't think who the first seamstress was is really that important, the discrepancy does illustrate the inaccuracy of some of these accounts, and makes one wonder about the accuracy of the more important details. It also makes one wonder why, if the fine details of this and other temple related matters are really vital to their validity, why the Lord didn't ensure these details were more carefully and more officially documented and kept, as He has with other things.
2. The Allred account says the first garments were made from muslin, which is a type of cotton, but the Heber C Kimball quote says that the garment the apostle Peter was wearing when he appeared in the temple was made of wool. This seems to indicate that the actual material they were made from wasn't really important. It also raises the question if there were perhaps other design aspects of the garment that were less important.

 

 

Quote

 

"I trust that when God says do something we do it. and we'd better not vary from that unless God gives permission..."

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly. And since 15 prophets, seers and revelators have approved the variations, I have no reason to doubt that they have also been approved by the Lord.

 

 

Quote

 

"If the design is unimportant, only the marks, then there is no need to keep 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."

 

 

This may sound radical to some, but my personal opinion is that IN THEORY the marks could actually be placed on clothing of any design, as long as the design still serves to "cover our nakedness" within the Lord's bounds of modesty. However, to avoid disputations, and the temptation to stretch the Lord's bound of modesty, the general membership is instructed NOT to make any alterations to the garment themselves. Instead, if we adhere to the design modifications the Lord has and may yet allow our Church leaders to approve, we can be assured that we're living within His bounds.

[mfbukowski]

All I know is that if I were stranded on a desert island and couldn't order garments, I would make my own out of whatever I could, add marks, and for me they would be the authorized pattern.

[Kiwi]

P.S.

 

In reading through the Allred account, it actually describes early alterations to the original design made Prophet Joseph, his wife Emma, and Eliza R. Snow, which all appear to have been made based purely on personal taste or practicality rather than any divine instruction. And since the Prophet Joseph was in regular contact with the Lord and other heavenly messengers, there is no reason to believe that any of these alteration were contrary to the will of the Lord. So clearly not every aspect of the design had significance.

[Kiwi]

mfbukowski, I commend you for your dedication!

 

 

I had to think of Mosiah 4:24-25

 

"...I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give. And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned;"

 

I believe the same principle would apply if we ever found ourselves in a situation without access to garments. If we say in our hearts "I wear not because I have not, but if I had I would wear" I believe this would be acceptable to the Lord.

[Calm]

People are not required to wear them in medical situations so I think you are right. "I would wear if I could, but I cannot" appears to be sufficient according to what we are taught.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski, I commend you for your dedication!

 

 

I had to think of Mosiah 4:24-25

 

"...I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give. And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned;"

 

I believe the same principle would apply if we ever found ourselves in a situation without access to garments. If we say in our hearts "I wear not because I have not, but if I had I would wear" I believe this would be acceptable to the Lord.

Well thanks, but that is just it- I really believe that the Lord wants us all to do the absolute BEST we can, and I really do believe in wearing garments.  I spend time thinking about the sybology and how the marks relate to covenants which relate to parts of the body etc.  In former times as the initatories were given, motions were made which linked the shape of the marks to parts of the body.  And no, I cannot prove that- it is my own observation and that of other temple workers I have discussed this with, in the temple, before the relatively recent changes made in the initatories. 

 

I see the garments as a strong symbol of my dedication to the Lord, and without them, I feel less "dedicated".   I don't like that feeling so I am pretty serious about wearing them and thinking about how they relate to the veil ceremony etc.

[mfbukowski]

Yes of course there are times it is impossible to wear them,  Been there done that too!  Didn't like it.

[Calm]

Yes of course there are times it is impossible to wear them,  Been there done that too!  Didn't like it.

Same here, there is a sense of being unfinished.

[Garden Girl]

Same here, there is a sense of being unfinished.

I feel the same... to me, every morning for the past 18 years when I put on fresh garments I think to myself... putting on the whole armor of God (Eph 6:11).  That's always the way I feel...

 

GG

[Thinking]

The title of this thread is why many non-LDS think the LDS Church is strange.

 

When I was still TBM, I was instructed by certain LDS authority figures to never let the garments touch the floor, whether it be during a shower or while sorting laundry. I thought that was over-the-top counsel.

[JLHPROF]

The title of this thread is why many non-LDS think the LDS Church is strange.

 

When I was still TBM, I was instructed by certain LDS authority figures to never let the garments touch the floor, whether it be during a shower or while sorting laundry. I thought that was over-the-top counsel.

 

Not really if you think about it.   They are considered holy.  Holy things are not to be dragged along the ground.

Heck, angelic messengers don't even touch the ground (at least, not in any visitation/vision we have the specifics about).

 

Of course, considering the way most people on this thread/poll think about garments, it probably doesn't matter anyway.

[mfbukowski]

Not really if you think about it.   They are considered holy.  Holy things are not to be dragged along the ground.

Heck, angelic messengers don't even touch the ground (at least, not in any visitation/vision we have the specifics about).

 

Of course, considering the way most people on this thread/poll think about garments, it probably doesn't matter anyway.

The instruction given in our temple is to not let them touch the ground "if you can help it".  It's not about some sanctimonious fetish- it's about as you say, reverence for things holy.

 

I have no clue how you could even put them on without having them at least brush the floor.

[mfbukowski]

The title of this thread is why many non-LDS think the LDS Church is strange.

 

Works for me, though I prefer the title "peculiar".

[Raingirl]

The instruction given in our temple is to not let them touch the ground "if you can help it".  It's not about some sanctimonious fetish- it's about as you say, reverence for things holy.

 

I have no clue how you could even put them on without having them at least brush the floor.

Why is it a "sanctimonious fetish" when someone chooses to follow the counsel they were given in the temple?

As for your not having a clue, I can't help you there. I manage to put on my garments just fine without them ever even coming close to touching the floor. And I don't go through any special gyrations to do that, just get dressed normally. It's not even remotely unimaginable or inconceivable. In fact, it's really easy. And I have the physical challenges of MS to deal with.

As a convert, I've never understood why so many think it's cool to whine about wearing garments. It should be considered a sacred privilege.

[mfbukowski]

Why is it a "sanctimonious fetish" when someone chooses to follow the counsel they were given in the temple?

As for your not having a clue, I can't help you there. I manage to put on my garments just fine without them ever even coming close to touching the floor. And I don't go through any special gyrations to do that, just get dressed normally. It's not even remotely unimaginable or inconceivable. In fact, it's really easy. And I have the physical challenges of MS to deal with.

As a convert, I've never understood why so many think it's cool to whine about wearing garments. It should be considered a sacred privilege.

Read it again, I think you missed the point.

 

You may have MS but try it with a replaced hip and knee. We all get to have challenges.  Best wishes

Edited December 24, 2014 by mfbukowski

[intra]

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;  
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place;

and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:  

Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 
(James 2:2-4) 

if we ought not judge another by their clothes, 

why be deceived thinking clothes commend you to God? 

[bluebell]

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place;

and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

(James 2:2-4)

if we ought not judge another by their clothes,

why be deceived thinking clothes commend you to God?

It's not the clothes but the covenants they symbolize that God cares about.

[mfbukowski]

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;  

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place;

and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:  

Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 

(James 2:2-4) 

if we ought not judge another by their clothes, 

why be deceived thinking clothes commend you to God? 

If you want to convert us, you really need to learn what we believe and stop missing the mark

Not even close to an effective post.

[intra]

If you want to convert us, you really need to learn what we believe and stop missing the mark

Not even close to an effective post.

no one can come to the Father unless the Father calls them. 

why do you think clothes commend you to God? your response was not even close to an explanation or exegesis. 

[bluebell]

no one can come to the Father unless the Father calls them.

why do you think clothes commend you to God? your response was not even close to an explanation or exegesis.

Perhaps you missed it, but at the bottom of the previous page I explained that Mormons do NOT believe clothes commend us to God.

[intra]

Perhaps you missed it, but at the bottom of the previous page I explained that Mormons do NOT believe clothes commend us to God.

it's good you have this sense, but poll results suggest yours is not representative of an unanimous belief. 

[bluebell]

it's good you have this sense, but poll results suggest yours is not representative of an unanimous belief.

I'm not seeing that. It looks like roughly 90% of the people who have responded have chosen an answer that specified the necessity of keeping the covenants in irder to obtain any blessings from God. Edited December 25, 2014 by bluebell