stemelbow Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Oh for the days of the wool wrist to ankle ties! Those were for real men. Someday soon we men will be running around in tank tops displaying our buttons and skimpy panties. old schoolers not wanting to see the coming changes ought to buy up all the old pairs while they last. 1
JLHPROF Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 35 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Someday soon we men will be running around in tank tops displaying our buttons and skimpy panties. old schoolers not wanting to see the coming changes ought to buy up all the old pairs while they last. I can see the day when garments will be replaced by something we can carry in our pockets or something similar. Kind of like and As for the old schoolers, fortunately: Revelation 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. And good for them. Matthew 22:11 ¶ And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The Nehor Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 I am waiting for the tie-dye coloring to be restored. Joseph has a coat of many colors so to receive the same blessings so should we. 1
JLHPROF Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 10 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I am waiting for the tie-dye coloring to be restored. Joseph has a coat of many colors so to receive the same blessings so should we. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_many_colors According to the Authorized King James Version, Genesis 37:3 reads: Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours. The Hebrew phrase kethoneth passim is translated here as coat of many colors, but some have suggested that the phrase may merely mean a "coat with long sleeves" or a "long coat with stripes." The Septuagint translation of the passage uses the word ποικίλος (poikilos), which indicates "many colored"; the Jewish Publication Society of America Version also employs the phrase "coat of many colors". On the other hand, the Revised Standard Version translates kethoneth passim as "a long robe with sleeves" while the New International Version notes the translation difficulties in a footnote, and translates it as "a richly ornamented robe". Aryeh Kaplan, in The Living Torah gives a range of possible explanations: Kethoneth passim in Hebrew. It was a royal garment; 2 Samuel 13:18 (cf. Ralbag ad loc.). The word passim can be translated as 'colorful' (Radak; Septuagint), embroidered (Ibn Ezra; Bachya; Ramban on Exodus 28:2), striped (Ibn Janach; Radak, Sherashim), or with pictures (Targum Yonathan). It can also denote a long garment, coming down to the palms of the hands (Rashbam; Ibn Ezra; Baaley Tosafoth; Bereshith Rabbah 84), and the feet (Lekach Tov). Alternatively, the word denotes the material out of which the coat was made, which was fine wool (Rashi) or silk (Ibn Janach). Hence, kethoneth passim, may be translated as 'a full-sleeved robe,' 'a coat of many colors,' 'a coat reaching to his feet,' 'an ornamented tunic,' 'a silk robe,' or 'a fine woolen cloak.' James Swanson suggests that the phrase indicates a "tunic or robe unique in design for showing special favor or relationship" and that "either the robe was very long-sleeved and extending to the feet, or a richly-ornamented tunic either of special color design or gold threading, both ornamental and not suitable for working." Remind you of anything? Kind of a coincidence, don't you think?
kllindley Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 10 hours ago, Calm said: I know of some younger people who like the one piece because they can't stand elastic. I'm one of them. I'm devastated by this announcement.
Calm Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 21 minutes ago, kllindley said: I'm one of them. I'm devastated by this announcement. So I take it the materials you like will no longer be available? These aren't the ones you want? If so, you should call the special order desk and see if you can still get them by special order. If not, you have till the end of .October to stockpile. " Corban zipper-front (regular stature only) Corban (regular stature only) Cotton-Poly Jersey (regular and tall statures)"
Damien the Leper Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Oh for the days of the wool wrist to ankle ties! Those were for real men. You do realize that it was probably us gay men who made a fuss. Fashion and all. Lol 3
Bernard Gui Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) On 7/6/2017 at 0:35 PM, cinepro said: My thought on reading that was how sad that almost everyone who was alive (and stuck in their garment-wearing habits) at the time of the switch to 2-piece must now be dead. The rumors of my death are somewhat exaggerated. In Central America, the washing ladies laundered our clothes in the rivers, beating them against rocks. One joke was, "Having 'time' in the mission is not knowing which hole to use to climb into your garments." In the Southern States Mission, late 1800s, my great-uncle wrote that mobbers would tear open the shirts of non-local men to find out if they were Mormon missionaries, and then beat them if they found garments. One of the elders involved in the Cane Creek Massacre in Tennessee had to remove his garments to escape to a safe location. Edited July 9, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Thinking Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 I clicked on the link and arrived at this site I had some ideas I wanted to share Wait! Something is wrong, it doesn't seem right They're talking about underwear!
Damien the Leper Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 I just started wearing my g's again. It's weird but I dig it. I wear only mesh because it's 114° in Phoenix. I need to move to Siberia...sigh. I need cold weather. I'm moving to Alberta. Hmmph! 1
Gray Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 15 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I can see the day when garments will be replaced by something we can carry in our pockets or something similar. Kind of like and As for the old schoolers, fortunately: Revelation 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. And good for them. Matthew 22:11 ¶ And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. I think that'd be a welcome change. The garments in Revelation are symbolic. Any symbol that communicates the meaning will do. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Valentinus said: I just started wearing my g's again. It's weird but I dig it. I completely understand. I've often thought that, were I ever excommunicated, losing the right to wear the garment would be one of the hardest things for me. I love both the physical and the spiritual comfort they provide. 2
stemelbow Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I completely understand. I've often thought that, were I ever excommunicated, losing the right to wear the garment would be one of the hardest things for me. I love both the physical and the spiritual comfort they provide. I admit, I'd be happy with another symbolic item reminding me of my covenants and all that. under-britches are kind of silly. But I dont' mind being silly too.
Garden Girl Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I completely understand. I've often thought that, were I ever excommunicated, losing the right to wear the garment would be one of the hardest things for me. I love both the physical and the spiritual comfort they provide. I do too, Hamba... I received my endowment in 1996 and, hence, began wearing my garments. After all these years, I still say to myself as I don fresh garments every morning... Putting on the whole armor of Christ... GG 2
Tacenda Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 8 hours ago, kllindley said: I'm one of them. I'm devastated by this announcement. Reminds me of a concert I went to years ago with Diana Ross. She was singing "Muscles", and inviting guys up on the stage. Then she started pulling up their shirts to show their "muscles". One of them was wearing the one piece and she couldn't figure out why she couldn't pull up his t-shirt. Just thought you may need to know that in case.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 19 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Regardless of belief, do you still feel that you made a promise to God that you would wear them? If so, it doesn't matter what you believe about the Church. You are keeping a promise you made to God, not to the Church. I challenge the claim that a promise is ever made (at least as part of temple ceremony). I've yet to have anyone show me where and when such a promise/covenant is made. 3
Alan Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 4 hours ago, Valentinus said: I just started wearing my g's again. It's weird but I dig it. I wear only mesh because it's 114° in Phoenix. I need to move to Siberia...sigh. I need cold weather. I'm moving to Alberta. Hmmph! Alberta's great.
Alan Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I challenge the claim that a promise is ever made (at least as part of temple ceremony). I've yet to have anyone show me where and when such a promise/covenant is made. It isn't in the ceremony. However, you are instructed prior to the endowment, usually by a member of the temple presidency, that you are required to wear them at (practically) all times for the rest of your life. You are free to leave the temple at that point. You are also given an opportunity to leave the ceremony prior to the presentation commencing. Therefore I would suggest that the wearing of the garment was both implied and instructed, and the continued participation in the ceremony can be taken as consent to do so. 4
Pete Ahlstrom Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 I don't miss them at all and believe that those that wear them should be given some sort of award in the afterlife for their suffering 1
pogi Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 51 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Reminds me of a concert I went to years ago with Diana Ross. She was singing "Muscles", and inviting guys up on the stage. Then she started pulling up their shirts to show their "muscles". One of them was wearing the one piece and she couldn't figure out why she couldn't pull up his t-shirt. Just thought you may need to know that in case. That is hilarious!
Jeanne Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I don't miss them at all and believe that those that wear them should be given some sort of award in the afterlife for their suffering Gentlemen prefer Hanes.
Damien the Leper Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I completely understand. I've often thought that, were I ever excommunicated, losing the right to wear the garment would be one of the hardest things for me. I love both the physical and the spiritual comfort they provide. For me, I think it goes deeper than the temple. I can't put it into words. I swear I'm the worst atheist EVER! 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Gentlemen prefer Hanes. No. I wore good quality underwear by Diesel, Marco Marco and Calvin Klein. Hanes we're horrible and never kept their shape.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Alan said: It isn't in the ceremony. However, you are instructed prior to the endowment, usually by a member of the temple presidency, that you are required to wear them at (practically) all times for the rest of your life. You are free to leave the temple at that point. You are also given an opportunity to leave the ceremony prior to the presentation commencing. Therefore I would suggest that the wearing of the garment was both implied and instructed, and the continued participation in the ceremony can be taken as consent to do so. Is "implied" or "instructed" the same thing as promising or covenanting? (assuming that instruction is uniform and consistent across all temples) Also, I don't recall the temple presidency telling me these things. Of course that was a long time ago so I easily could have forgotten. I doubt a brief meeting before the ceremony would have made a huge impression. Is instruction from a temple worker/presidency 1 time the same as a formal gospel teaching. Seems like a stretch to me ETA- I find it a little strange that something considered to be so important isn't part of the actual ceremony nor does it appear to be any kind of formalized written script. It seems very loosey goosey. We can only assume that the temple presidency shared what they were supposed to when they were supposed to but there isn't any kind of record about having done it nor is there record about what they said. I assume there is probably a Temple President's handbook somewhere that gives them some kind of instruction, but having never seen that I can't be confident that what they say is consistent today, let alone 20-30-40+ years ago Edited July 7, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 1
Garden Girl Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 20 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I don't miss them at all and believe that those that wear them should be given some sort of award in the afterlife for their suffering 6 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Gentlemen prefer Hanes. I suppose I'm being overly touchy this morning, but these two posts just irritate me... I'm pretty used to our critics on this board and can usually roll with it... the wink and smiley face here do little to mask the underlying mocking... Jeanne more than Pete... of us stupid Mormons, foolish enough to put up with the wearing of garments... GG 3
Recommended Posts