Unholy Garments?

[Tacenda]

6 hours 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.

Recently, someone I know was burned from the neck down, except where his garment bottoms touched. This fellow didn't have his garment top on and only his garment bottoms and shorts. 

His father and he mentioned in Sacrament meeting that they believe it was because of wearing the garment that he wasn't burned in those areas.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't agree with this at all.

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

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

And His representatives on earth are the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles. He works through them. Looks like we are in cahoots here.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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/

This has nothing to do with "rape culture."

"'One guy can't control 44 girls on our team,' Rozier said."

Seriously? There are many times one person's complaint causes hardship for others. Roe v. Wade comes to mind. As did the 2 Wiccans who complained to our school board about the stereotype Halloween witches and now Halloween is called Harvest Festival with nothing associated with Halloween allowed in the schools including pumpkins. And our Christmas Concerts are now called Winter Concerts where the music teachers have to count the "holiday" songs and justify the educational use of carols because someone complained. And there are dozens of examples on public school and college campuses where an individual or small group claims offense at something or someone and it is banned. Transgender locker rooms anyone? Talk about one person trumping everyone's rights!

"'They are sexualizing a cheerleading uniform and I just think it's disgusting, they are objectifying these girls,' Wood wrote."

Who is objectifying the women? Everyone knows professional and most college cheerleaders' uniforms are designed for only one purpose.... to motivate the team to win the game, of course. 

And talk about double standards, moral ambiguity, confusion, objectifying women, hypocrisy, and general nuttiness.... On the same web page as this goofy article about cheerleaders is the story of the "hottest" elementary teacher in America. Crivens!

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And His representatives on earth are the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles. He works through them. Looks like we are in cahoots here.

You should read the history of the first real changes made to the garment.

No revelation was given that authorized the change. 
The First Presidency under President Grant had received complaints from members and a recommendation from a Temple President about how comfortable they were and some members were altering them without permission or refusing to go to the temple.
Basically the FP then said that they could not see that any revelatory source provided the pattern (despite what their predecessor President Smith and others had stated) and they were at liberty to change them to suit the membership demands.

So God never authorized a change.  The FP concluded (incorrectly in my opinion) that God had nothing to do with the design in the first place and changed them to make members happy.

[The Nehor]

On 9/14/2016 at 4:04 PM, 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.

The garment design in 50 years:

except with the crossover on the belly button and one leg being longer.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You should read the history of the first real changes made to the garment.

No revelation was given that authorized the change. 
The First Presidency under President Grant had received complaints from members and a recommendation from a Temple President about how comfortable they were and some members were altering them without permission or refusing to go to the temple.
Basically the FP then said that they could not see that any revelatory source provided the pattern (despite what their predecessor President Smith and others had stated) and they were at liberty to change them to suit the membership demands.

So God never authorized a change.  The FP concluded (incorrectly in my opinion) that God had nothing to do with the design in the first place and changed them to make members happy.

Perhaps later First Presidencies have corrected the misunderstanding?

[Bernard Gui]

I appreciate your humor, Bro Nehor, but the garment of the Holy Priesthood should be given at least modicum of respect.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The garment design in 50 years:

except with the crossover on the belly button and one leg being longer.

That's a quick way to get a thread closed. 
But it think it's more likely to be something like this:

Or this:

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps later First Presidencies have corrected the misunderstanding?

I don't follow.
President Grants misunderstanding in thinking there is NO revealed design at all?
Or his six predecessors misunderstanding in thinking the design was revealed from heaven?

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I appreciate your humor, Bro Nehor, but the garment of the Holy Priesthood should be given at least modicum of respect.

 

I do give it respect but I also realize that it is, in some senses, ridiculous. Like much of religion. We wear strange clothes in the temple. We get dunked underwater to make promises. We transmit power through our hands when performing Priesthood ordinances. We for some reason need counsel on how many holes we put in our ears. 

God knew that would be the reaction of many so what was he trying to say by doing that? 

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

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

True, the entire store to by them was about 10x10. Back then of course...no internet to by them on line.