Unholy Garments?

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Some garments turn a grey dingy color, and, as I remember from a Home Ec class, that was is what happens to 100% nylon.

Nope, they aren't nylon. It is really strange, I thought this was normal. 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Except the first point specifies unauthorized changes. Who has the authority to make changes? Those who hold the keys of the temple endowment and supervise its administration.

I've only been talking about future authorized changes.

When talking about options someone might have when making their own garments, I suspect they would just need to keep them near the style of the current patterns as far as color and style go.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Some garments turn a grey dingy color, and, as I remember from a Home Ec class, that was is what happens to 100% nylon.

http://myrandomsampler.com/2015/07/how-to-care-for-lds-temple-garments.html

I googled "gray lds garments" and this came up. I think it's an answer, hope it works!

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Except the first point specifies unauthorized changes. Who has the authority to make changes?

"He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them...." - Joseph Smith

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Except the first point specifies unauthorized changes. Who has the authority to make changes? Those who hold the keys of the temple endowment and supervise its administration.

Authorized or not, the myriad changes to the garment design don't point to the style and cut being based on some eternal principle.  

Then we get to the markings themselves which the Prophet Joseph just borrowed from the Masonic rituals.  

Given this I think it is logical to surmise that the important eternal principles are the covenants we make and the garments as a reminder of those covenants.  The garments themselves can be a variety of styles, cuts, fabrics, and colors and still serve their purpose. 

[longview]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Nope, they aren't nylon. It is really strange, I thought this was normal. 

Instead of government mandated detergent (the crappy kind like HE), get some trisodium phosphates.  A tablespoon does wonders and makes your clothes BRIGHT!  (like it used to say back in the day).   It also works wonders for the dishwasher (wouldn't you want to eat off clean dishes?)  See the full story here:  https://mises.org/library/why-everything-dirtier

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, longview said:

Instead of government mandated detergent (the crappy kind like HE), get some trisodium phosphates.  A tablespoon does wonders and makes your clothes BRIGHT!  (like it used to say back in the day).   It also works wonders for the dishwasher (wouldn't you want to eat off clean dishes?)  See the full story here:  https://mises.org/library/why-everything-dirtier

<tangent rant on>

Yes, let's put more phosphate in our water!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication

<tangent rant off>

 

[Coreyb]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them...." - Joseph Smith

I am kind of surprised you haven't made for your self some old school Nauvoo style garments JLHPROF.  Or maybe you have 😏

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Authorized or not, the myriad changes to the garment design don't point to the style and cut being based on some eternal principle.  

Then we get to the markings themselves which the Prophet Joseph just borrowed from the Masonic rituals.  

Given this I think it is logical to surmise that the important eternal principles are the covenants we make and the garments as a reminder of those covenants.  The garments themselves can be a variety of styles, cuts, fabrics, and colors and still serve their purpose. 

Th only important eternal principle here is who has the Priesthood authority to administer the endowment.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them...." - Joseph Smith

 

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

I've only been talking about future authorized changes.

When talking about options someone might have when making their own garments, I suspect they would just need to keep them near the style of the current patterns as far as color and style go.

Making garments in defiance of the instructions of those who have the Priesthood keys (revealed to Joseph Smith, bestowed by heavenly messengers, and held by the current prophet) to administer the temple ordinances? Something seems off here.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Th only important eternal principle here is who has the Priesthood authority to administer the endowment.

No, the only important eternal principle here is what did the endowment consist of when it was established before the foundation of the earth.
Those elements cannot change.  Other elements may be alterable.

Joseph Smith - He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.

So assuming the temple ordinances were revealed to Joseph and are the same forever and ever, what alterations would we consider "authorized" and what authority would be needed to alter them without violating the rule that they must be "the same forever"?

Edited September 14, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, the only important eternal principle here is what did the endowment consist of when it was established before the foundation of the earth.
Those elements cannot change.  Other elements may be alterable.

Joseph Smith - He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.

So assuming the temple ordinances were revealed to Joseph and are the same forever and ever, what alterations would we consider "authorized" and what authority would be needed to alter them without violating the rule that they must be "the same forever"?

Whatever those currently holding the keys decide.

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Whatever those currently holding the keys decide.

Sorry, I believe in continuing revelation and in the stewardship held by those who hold the keys.
But that doesn't give them free reign to change things God already said could not change.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I believe in continuing revelation and in the stewardship held by those who hold the keys.
But that doesn't give them free reign to change things God already said could not change.

Depends on whether or not God authorizes the changes. Nothing I have seen would suggest they

have free reign to make changes willy-nilly.

 

[Tacenda]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Well, the slippery slope has certainly appeared in other areas dealing with clothing.  Just look at the past 60 plus years of modesty standards.  My mother was from a very devout LDS family (and Grandma was obsessed about appearance) and she and a number of other LDS young women over the next few decades often wore strapless prom dresses.  Sleeveless shirts for non-endowed girls and women were seen by me (and many worn by me until my own endowment) at church often during summer until the 90s iirc.  Nor did I see any lessons teaching four year olds in the Friend that sundresses required T-shirts until the last decade or so.

And now we get stuff like this:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/woman-holding-book-candle-rane-183369?lang=eng

This is pretty interesting, I guess the voice of one young man trumps the school's cheerleading squad. Talk about rape culture. This probably belongs in the other thread though. http://fox13now.com/2016/09/12/timpview-high-cheerleaders-rally-in-defense-of-uniforms-after-complaint/

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Depends on whether or not God authorizes the changes. Nothing I have seen would suggest they

have free reign to make changes willy-nilly.

 

So that leads us to the question?
If God has previously said something is eternal and unchangeable, and God does not lie, would God ever authorize a change to that thing?

Does God change?  Does eternal law change?  Is God a God because he follows eternal laws or are the laws subject to his changing his mind?
 

[Calm]

Did you read the article?  The uniforms were never disallowed, it apparently was a misunderstanding (and I find it very unlikely that it would have been changed because of the complaint of one young man as those uniforms are expensive and the school isn't going to spend more money where it doesn't have to), but now the rumor mill won't stop with the wrong info.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So that leads us to the question?
If God has previously said something is eternal and unchangeable, and God does not lie, would God ever authorize a change to that thing?

Does God change?  Does eternal law change?  Is God a God because he follows eternal laws or are the laws subject to his changing his mind?
 

You're forgetting another option:

Do men sometimes think God has said something is "eternal and unchangeable" when in fact He hasn't?

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I believe in continuing revelation and in the stewardship held by those who hold the keys.
But that doesn't give them free reign to change things God already said could not change.

LDS have a long history of piling superstition and lore on to the Temple Garments, and I suspect it continues to happen to this day.  If you think God is directing the evolution of the design, and that He felt that in the 1800s, long-sleeved, long-legged one-piece muslin garments with no buttons were only pleasing to Him, and by 1980 He felt that short-sleeved, short-legged, two-piece polyester were acceptable, then great. 

I think it's just as logical that God only cares about a few specific things, and that other factors (the ones that change) were never that interesting to Him in the first place.  I think the trend over the past few decades is a "de-mystification" of the garments (when was the last time you heard about someone's torso not being burned in a car wreck?), and I think a de-mystification of the the design and construction of the garments is probably overdue as well.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you read the article?  The uniforms were never disallowed, it apparently was a misunderstanding (and I find it very unlikely that it would have been changed because of the complaint of one young man as those uniforms are expensive and the school isn't going to spend more money where it doesn't have to), but now the rumor mill won't stop with the wrong info.

I listened and read, and it was told to the cheerleaders not to wear them, and I believe since there was some controversy they changed it. But it may have been a misunderstanding too. I hate when the news gets it wrong and don't fact check if it's made up.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

LDS have a long history of piling superstition and lore on to the Temple Garments, and I suspect it continues to happen to this day.  If you think God is directing the evolution of the design, and that He felt that in the 1800s, long-sleeved, long-legged one-piece muslin garments with no buttons were only pleasing to Him, and by 1980 He felt that short-sleeved, short-legged, two-piece polyester were acceptable, then great. 

I think it's just as logical that God only cares about a few specific things, and that other factors (the ones that change) were never that interesting to Him in the first place.  I think the trend over the past few decades is a "de-mystification" of the garments (when was the last time you heard about someone's torso not being burned in a car wreck?), and I think a de-mystification of the the design and construction of the garments is probably overdue as well.

Totally agree.  Garment design has changed.  Temple script has changed.  Symbols are borrowed from the Masons.  The covenants are the important part and the garments' function is to remind us of those covenants.  That's all.

[Bernard Gui]

From my experience with garments starting with my grandparents (born in 1880s in a Mormon pioneer colony in Colorado), through my active parents, and my own endowment in 1966, I conclude the brethren are periodically allowed to adapt the garment style to the needs and social circumstances of each generation. This reflects a personal and merciful interest from God in the administration of the ordinances and garments that are required for his children to enter back into his presence. One cannot attend the temple and be ignorant of the foundational significance of the endowment and the manifest integrity of all that is associated with it. 

The garment is a marvelous gift from God. Calling it unholy or making it a point of contention seems to smack a bit of ingratitude. Those who administer the ordinance and authorize the garment don't take the responsibility lightly. Why should we?

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Guest]

On September 13, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Calm said:

I got married in 80.  They had the two piece in all the same materials as the one piece as well as a few more.  

I am not sure, but I was at the Swiss Temple and they did not have every selection. Now I just pop into the store behind the Atlanta Temple. There they have everything white for everybody, to assist the first time attendee to burial needs. 

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I conclude the brethren are periodically allowed to adapt the garment style to the needs and social circumstances of each generation. This reflects a personal and merciful interest from God in the administration of the ordinances and garments that are required for his children to enter back into his presence.

I don't agree with this at all.

Quote

One cannot attend the temple and not understand the foundational significance of the endowment and the manifest integrity of all that is associated with it.

I don't agree with this at all either.  Many have attended the temple and not understood the endowment.

Quote

Those who administer the ordinance and authorize the garment don't take the responsibility lightly.

I don't believe they take it lightly.  But there is only one being that can authorize our garments.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

I am not sure, but I was at the Swiss Temple and they did not have every selection. Now I just pop into the store behind the Atlanta Temple. There they have everything white for everybody, to assist the first time attendee to burial needs. 

It certainly is possible they weren't able to keep a full inventory immediately after the change because of the demand.