hope_for_things Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 10 hours ago, Tacenda said: One good thing is that the church now lets you return garments when you've taken them out of the bag. Before you couldn't unless they were unopened. I didn't know that, it could have come in handy. I also wish I had known about the new garments coming out for men about 6 months ago when I bought a bunch of the old style. I'm guessing they won't allow me to return these now.
hope_for_things Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: The last Temple Recommend interview I had, which was some time ago, admittedly, actually, it was the opposite: Endowed members should wear the garment during any activity for which it reasonably can be worn. If, in fact, that standard has changed, odd duck that I am, I'm unlikely to alter my personal standard. (Though, in the exceedingly unlikely event that I ever engage in intimacy with someone, while others' mileage may vary, I'm not wearing it for that ...) Hmm... that emphasis of "reasonably can be worn" seems like it can be very broadly interpreted. Interesting how things change with the times.
ALarson Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: When the garments and the endowment were first rolled out in Nauvoo to paraphrase Brigham there was a lot to systematize. We could start a whole thread on what aspects of the garments were revealed (and potentially are eternal) and what are the conventions of man. But that thread has been done before. The endowment at first (and especially the second anointing) was reserved for the inner circle, the quorum of the annointed. And most of that group were polygamists. In fact some historians state that acceptance of polygamy was a prerequisite for receiving ordinances. Interesting....thanks JLHPROF for this info and history. Do you believe they were worn all the time like they are today? Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson
bluebell Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 43 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I disagree. I shop at the Deseret Book in Layton Utah. And have never had to show mine. They just look up my name and see that I've been endowed, maybe they see that my recommend isn't current as well, don't know, but I've yet to be turned down. I have my recommend on me even, but never shown it. Try it bluebell, they'll just look you up without it. I shop there and have always had to show mine. They even have a sign that says you will need to show it to buy garments or certain temple clothes. But maybe different cashiers handle things differently.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 20 hours ago, cinepro said: Frankly, the only argument I can see that would precipitate such a change is that it would increase the birthrate in the church, which is sorely needed. Clever, but maybe this is true as well. I think the current garment we wear now, have no magic power (as many anti-Mormons often, or love to say), unless it the “power to remind” of us our covenants. This is what has the power to work magic in Spiritual ways. As there's are God’s ways, that are so much higher than man’s way. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 17 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Its just such a weird thing because I've never even heard it talked about that you shouldn't remove them to have sex. If I were crafting that list for Jana's survey I wouldn't have even thought of that as something to include on the list. Where did that idea come from do you think? Did some old church leader make comments about that or is it written somewhere in a book or any obscure reference somewhere to your knowledge? I have never heard of wearing the garments even while having sex. Sounds like folklore on a par with some Three Nephite Stories. I have always been told by those in authority that one may remove the garments for sex, for bath/shower, and for athletic activities such as swimming. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have never heard of wearing the garments even while having sex. Sounds like folklore on a par with some Three Nephite Stories. I have always been told by those in authority that one may remove the garments for sex, for bath/shower, and for athletic activities such as swimming. But doesn't it strike you as odd that they would need to tell you (people) that it's OK to remove garments for relations? I think there is some truth to the story. Much more truth than the 3 Nephite stories
ALarson Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have never heard of wearing the garments even while having sex. Sounds like folklore on a par with some Three Nephite Stories. It does seem odd that this was ever taught (by temple workers) or believed by members. But it seems to have happened: Quote Instructions that the garment is to be worn "both night and day" have created some uncertainty among married couples about the propriety of removing the garment for the sake of physical intimacy. Qualitative research by Catholic scholar Colleen McDannell offers grounds to suspect that LDS couples typically take a common-sense attitude toward negotiating between their romantic needs and their commitment to regularly wear the garment. However, as recently as 1968, the First Presidency had to rein in temple workers who were instructing couples to keep their garments on during sexual relations. There appears to have been a notion among nineteenth-century Saints that one should never be entirely divested of the garment--that even when bathing or changing clothes, one should contrive to never be entirely naked. http://www.ldsendowment.org/clothing.html 3
SouthernMo Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: It does seem odd that this was ever taught (by temple workers) or believed by members. But it seems to have happened: http://www.ldsendowment.org/clothing.html There seems to be in many faiths those who believe that more is better. Teach chastity; celibacy is better. Teach garment wearing; never take it off. Teach word of wisdom; never consume caffeine. Etc... The Buddhist concept of “middle way” needs to be better understood and practiced. 2
hope_for_things Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have never heard of wearing the garments even while having sex. Sounds like folklore on a par with some Three Nephite Stories. I have always been told by those in authority that one may remove the garments for sex, for bath/shower, and for athletic activities such as swimming. I'd never even heard of it either, but apparently we've been deprived an obedience to a higher standard we didn't know existed, while all these millenials are either keeping their garments on or planning to when they get married. 1
alter idem Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 14 hours ago, hope_for_things said: In the quorum of the anointed, I believe most of those individuals initiated to that very select group were brought into the polygamy secret as part of the process. There may be some exceptions, but the two went hand in hand during Joseph’s life. I don't think that is right. The wearing of the garment was tied to the endowment, not polygamy per se. Not all who received the endowment practiced polygamy; even among Joseph's closest confidantes in his 'select group'--a great example is Hyrum Smith, who was one of the last to be informed about polygamy. Fair mormon said this and I agree as this was my understanding: Quote Did Joseph and the others remove their sacred garments in order to avoid being identified as polygamists? There is no documentation that ties the wearing of garments to the practice of polygamy. It was not required that one practice polygamy in order to receive the endowment. In the case of Joseph Smith, he was easily identifiable whether or not he was wearing his garments. Removal of his garments would certainly have made no difference in his being identified and taken to Carthage. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_and_others_with_him_remove_their_garments_in_order_to_avoid_being_identified_as_polygamists%3F 2
Duncan Posted May 22, 2019 Author Posted May 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: OK, now you've really lost me. There is no spandex in any of my garments. Are you talking about the elastic waistband? If so, why did you mention that it was the tops that wear out? Also if so, maybe try a larger size? I was responding to your comment about this comment of mine "The bottoms not really so much, but the ribbon part frays and they last maybe 2 years? maybe?" spandex,=elastic waistband, whatever it's called! The tops for me wear out quicker than the bottom but when the bottoms wear out it's due to the elastic waistband part I tried a larger size for the tops but then it's like I look like i'm kifing tomatoes or something, the bottom part can only go down so far for you to get your pants on and it looks really bunchy and yeah looks like i'm concealing tomatoes
alter idem Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'd never even heard of it either, but apparently we've been deprived an obedience to a higher standard we didn't know existed, while all these millenials are either keeping their garments on or planning to when they get married. So strange. It seems contradictory to the whole 'be fruitful and multiply' command. I wonder where they got this notion? Might explain why these young couples have fewer children these days. 🤭
alter idem Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 13 hours ago, 10THAmendment said: Yep. Garments are at least double the price of real underwear. $4 each piece is pretty steep. I’d like to see how much it costs the church to manufacture each article. I see you've never shopped for women's underwear. 4.00 a piece is cheap. 4
alter idem Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: I disagree. I shop at the Deseret Book in Layton Utah. And have never had to show mine. They just look up my name and see that I've been endowed, maybe they see that my recommend isn't current as well, don't know, but I've yet to be turned down. I have my recommend on me even, but never shown it. Try it bluebell, they'll just look you up without it. The last time I bought them at the distribution center they asked for my member record number--I did not have to show my recommend but if I didn't know my member record number I could have shown my recommend. 3
Maidservant Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 I do recall, whether she was following specific counsel or it was her own idea I'll never know, but when I was endowed and married on the same day in 1990, and I actually specifically asked that question of whether I was permitted to remove them for purposes of intimacy (and at the time I really cared about being obedient and didn't want to be afoul of anything and I wanted to show my love to God with as much obedience as possible) and the temple worker assigned to me as a bride smiled and said that that was something we decided for ourselves (with the Lord) type of thing. Well, I did decide right then and there a big fat no for me, ha ha; and never really worried about it after that. But her way of speaking made it sound as if leaving them on during intimacy was still an option or practice that was 'on the table' or taking place for some. Maybe there is some esoteric reason for keeping them on related to the endowment.
alter idem Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: But doesn't it strike you as odd that they would need to tell you (people) that it's OK to remove garments for relations? I think there is some truth to the story. Much more truth than the 3 Nephite stories That's one person who said that he either asked or was told--I don't think there are that many who would need to ask. I bet there are tons for whom it never came up. It never came up for me as I and those I know have never even considered that Garments don't have to be worn all the time, It's common sense that there are exceptions and I'd assume most people can figure it out for themselves. 1
alter idem Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 32 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: There seems to be in many faiths those who believe that more is better. Teach chastity; celibacy is better. Teach garment wearing; never take it off. Teach word of wisdom; never consume caffeine. Etc... The Buddhist concept of “middle way” needs to be better understood and practiced. The ones who get caught up in this kind of rigid thinking are fundamentalists and those who tend to be devout to the unhealthy extreme. They also sometimes go so far in their devotion that they end up leaving the church. 'Never take it off' is something Fundamentalist types would likely gravitate to. 3
bluebell Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 36 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: There seems to be in many faiths those who believe that more is better. Teach chastity; celibacy is better. Teach garment wearing; never take it off. Teach word of wisdom; never consume caffeine. Etc... The Buddhist concept of “middle way” needs to be better understood and practiced. This is why I love lessons and talks on the trouble with "looking beyond the mark." We humans struggle with the middle way because it's more work. Believing in extremes is much easier because it's all or nothing. You don't have to spend energy trying to figure out where the line is, the line is either everything or it doesn't exist. Easy peasy. And usually very messed up. 3
alter idem Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, Maidservant said: I do recall, whether she was following specific counsel or it was her own idea I'll never know, but when I was endowed and married on the same day in 1990, and I actually specifically asked that question of whether I was permitted to remove them for purposes of intimacy (and at the time I really cared about being obedient and didn't want to be afoul of anything and I wanted to show my love to God with as much obedience as possible) and the temple worker assigned to me as a bride smiled and said that that was something we decided for ourselves (with the Lord) type of thing. Well, I did decide right then and there a big fat no for me, ha ha; and never really worried about it after that. But her way of speaking made it sound as if leaving them on during intimacy was still an option or practice that was 'on the table' or taking place for some. Maybe there is some esoteric reason for keeping them on related to the endowment. Well there you have it. Best not to ask. You will get all kinds of differing opinions and the temple workers are now advised not to counsel patrons. My mother once had a temple worker scold her for having tan lines! I think the reasons this zealotry happens in a small percentage of members is pretty straightforward. IMO, It comes from a righteous desire, but taken to extreme. It makes sense because if they are told the garment is a protection, then the thinking goes, 'I need to be protected from unchaste thoughts or behavior' especially during sexual behavior that I'm not entirely comfortable with and sexual feelings that I'm not sure are something a righteous person should have." And so, the person feels that wearing them is the more devout and 'safe' thing to do. I think it's a sign of obsessive thinking and probably comes from a place of not being entirely comfortable with sexual intimacy--but that's just my opinion. 3
JulieM Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, alter idem said: So strange. It seems contradictory to the whole 'be fruitful and multiply' command. I wonder where they got this notion? They were apparently receiving that instruction from some of the workers in different temples. It must have been more than just a few rare instances if the leaders had to issue a statement! Hard to believe but I guess true. Edited May 22, 2019 by JulieM 1
The Nehor Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 There was a worker at the temple I worked at. They had to pull her off of own endowment duty because she kept insisting that you had to keep one arm in the garment while bathing or showering despite repeatedly being told to stop saying that.
alter idem Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 1 hour ago, ALarson said: It does seem odd that this was ever taught (by temple workers) or believed by members. But it seems to have happened: http://www.ldsendowment.org/clothing.html It's not uncommon for these notions to be very hard to root out. It can be a very small percentage who believe this stuff, but it still gets disseminated. Example is caffeine. We were NEVER told that caffeine was prohibited by the word of wisdom, but how many of us have had instances were we were told not to drink it by well-meaning members and even leaders at various times--until the church HAD to say something. It only takes a small, but stubbornly persistent group to keep something like this alive. The notion that the garment must be worn all the times, no exceptions, is one of those notions, so I'm not surprised they had to issue a statement in 1968. That more millenials seem to have picked up this notion is disconcerting and maybe the church will have to re-issue that 1968 statement--though it may not do any good for some zealots. Some people have their own extreme positions which they don't wish to give up and to be honest, they have that right--we all have a right to do as we please. They just need to stop trying to pull others into their dysfunction, IMO.
Kenngo1969 Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Hmm... that emphasis of "reasonably can be worn" seems like it can be very broadly interpreted. Interesting how things change with the times. It can be interpreted broadly if one wishes to do so. I'm not anyone's judge.
ALarson Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, alter idem said: It's not uncommon for these notions to be very hard to root out. It can be a very small percentage who believe this stuff, but it still gets disseminated. Example is caffeine. We were NEVER told that caffeine was prohibited by the word of wisdom,... That's not true: Quote GBH: Oh, I don't know. You've read a part of the word of wisdom. The word of wisdom covers many things. It covers the excessive use of meat, as I see it. It covers, in a very particular way, the use of tobacco and alcohol. LK: By saying no? GBH: By saying, by proscribing those things. LK: No to caffeine? GBH: No to caffeine, coffee and tea http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/larry_king_1998.shtml And here's a few more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLFDP_MeYhg https://www.lds.org/study/liahona/1990/03/caffeine-the-subtle-addiction?lang=eng Quote Caffeine Abuse and the Word of Wisdom Now what does this mean for us as Latter-day Saints? While we are counseled against taking addictive substances or harmful drugs, the Word of Wisdom does not specifically prohibit caffeine. However, I believe that if we follow the spirit of the Word of Wisdom, we will be very careful about what we consume, particularly any substance that can have a negative impact on our bodies. This is true regarding any drug, substance, or even food that may be damaging to one’s health. This includes caffeine. https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2008/12/the-energy-drink-epidemic?lang=eng Quote “Is it against Church standards to drink cola beverages or any other beverage containing caffeine?” We know that cola drinks contain the drug caffeine. We know caffeine is not wholesome nor prudent for the use of our bodies. It is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used. https://www.lds.org/study/new-era/1975/10/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/is-it-against-church-standards-to-drink-cola-beverages-or-any-other-beverage-containing-caffeine?lang=eng I get what you are saying (regarding this specific topic about the garments), but we cannot claim that the members never heard "no caffeine" from our leaders. Also, the wearing of garments during sex instruction must have been given enough by temple workers that a statement correcting this was issued. So the members weren't just believing that was how it was supposed to be on their own. I'm glad these have both been corrected. Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson 2
Recommended Posts