Garments only worn in the Temple?

[Ginger Snaps]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

You do if you buy them at Deseret Book. They always ask to see it. I’m not sure how it works online. 

I’m pretty sure they just need your membership number. They probably ask for a TR to get your number off of it. 

[Kenngo1969]

59 minutes ago, alter idem said:

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.

 

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

15 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.

Most of those who were initiated into the anointed quorum were also brought into the polygamy secret, that is what I was saying, not that wearing the garments were directly tied to polygamy, but more indirectly.  I also think there was an association around the garments and polygamy.  The Fairmormon comments don't square with what I've read from reputable historians, they are a little too one sided, although carefully worded, as you can see from a typical FAIR post.  

Here is an essay from the Journal of Mormon History, in case you're interested on more about the anointed quorum, a well written essay by Devery Anderson.  

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23289177?read-now=1&seq=10#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

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. 

Yeah, this isn't just an issue of one person not knowing, or one leader giving direction. This is a thing. It may seem silly to most of us but there's enough uncertainty about it that people wonder, ask, and leaders have had to address it.

[mnn727]

18 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Just curious - when you are making the decision about whether or not to wear garments, do you consider cost in that decision?  😊

I always wear garments when I am wearing clothes.

And no, cost is the added bonus to the equation.

[mnn727]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You’re not shopping around much then.  Similar style briefs in a 5-8 pack at Costco are cheaper per item.  I’m guessing they are way more comfortable too.  I don’t think the church can compete with the cost or quality of the big manufacturers.  

I'm a big tall man, Costco has zero items I can wear. Look at a Big and Tall mens stores for prices.

This is the cheapest I have seen ($11.00) each when bought in packs of 3 for $33.00:

https://www.destinationxl.com/mens-big-and-tall-store/mens-underwear/cat870076?N=10667&Nf=product.startDate|LTEQ%2B1.5585444E12&Nr=NOT(sku.color.inStoreOnly:1)&gclid=CjwKCAjw5pPnBRBJEiwAULZKvlBRWu858Ds3HBYrkswATNLggH1ivAdlBLPO9y_AlV0-uwvlPvJmQRoCSmUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&nocache=1558547134054

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by mnn727

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours 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  

Yes, you appear to be correct, based on comments here.  Very strange.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I'm going to go in and see! And check out the new G's for men. 🙂

 

[mnn727]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

I like the idea of garments but detest wearing them they always come untucked, you have to order them online, the tops wear out and it seems like you are always buying new ones, it's never ending!!!!!!!!!!

Buy the Tall tops, they never come untucked. I always have a 2 week supply and they almost never wear out. I've been endowed 26 years and I think I have ordered tops 3 times. Try doing that with BVD or Hanes.

[mnn727]

15 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Tangential question: If an endowed member wants to wear the garment, but does hold a temple recommend, what does he/she do If a new garment is needed?  Can those with temple recommends buy a garment for that individual?  Or, must that individual wear the garment beyond their inevitable yellowing?

Once endowed you can always buy then, even if you don't have a current TR. You just need your membership number to order online.

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Buy the Tall tops, they never come untucked. I always have a 2 week supply and they almost never wear out. I've been endowed 26 years and I think I have ordered tops 3 times. Try doing that with BVD or Hanes.

You’re a brave man to openly brag about how seldom you buy new underwear!

[mnn727]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You’re a brave man to openly brag about how seldom you buy new underwear!

They don't wear out if you have enough to rotate their use, and by adding a little "Oxy-Clean" in the washer and they stay bright and white.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Most of those who were initiated into the anointed quorum were also brought into the polygamy secret, that is what I was saying, not that wearing the garments were directly tied to polygamy, but more indirectly.  I also think there was an association around the garments and polygamy.  The Fairmormon comments don't square with what I've read from reputable historians, they are a little too one sided, although carefully worded, as you can see from a typical FAIR post.  

Here is an essay from the Journal of Mormon History, in case you're interested on more about the anointed quorum, a well written essay by Devery Anderson.  

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23289177?read-now=1&seq=10#page_scan_tab_contents

 

So it appears that ALL who lived polygamy did wear the garments....but that there were a few who were initiated into the anointed quorum (wore garments) who did not live polygamy or lived it later (like Hyrum)?

I think then it makes sense that some may have feared others seeing them wearing garments if they were trying to keep their polygamy a secret.  Even if some may have stated they didn't fear that, I'd imagine many did.  That's most likely where the belief (by some) originated that it was the polygamists who wore the garments in the early days of the church.  Interesting...thanks!

Edited May 22, 2019 by ALarson

[snowflake]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But you've made it quite obvious in the past that you adore the idea of plural marriage and wish it were currently a commandment.

#Me too. 

[Duncan]

33 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Buy the Tall tops, they never come untucked. I always have a 2 week supply and they almost never wear out. I've been endowed 26 years and I think I have ordered tops 3 times. Try doing that with BVD or Hanes.

What is BVD, I know what Hanes are but can you get Hanes garments?

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm going to go in and see! And check out the new G's for men. 🙂

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I’m pretty sure they just need your membership number. They probably ask for a TR to get your number off of it. 

Probably. 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Interesting....thanks JLHPROF for this info and history.

Do you believe they were worn all the time like they are today?

No, not at first.

There are records of robes being shared and I might be mistaken but I vaguely recall garments being laundered and reused between sessions too.  I'll try and find it.

Additionally the usage of the marks has varied.  The marks were always cut, never embroidered in the early days.  At one point this was done as part of the ceremony.  At another point the marks were cut into certain articles of clothing other than the garments.

That said, I'm not convinced that wearing them all the time started under Brigham.  Based on accounts of the anointed quorum and Willard Richards at Carthage I think the garment rules as practiced in Utah were being established in Joseph's lifetime, even if they weren't firm.

[SouthernMo]

36 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

They don't wear out if you have enough to rotate their use, and by adding a little "Oxy-Clean" in the washer and they stay bright and white.

Quick math: You’ve worn each garment top about 225 times!

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

This could cause an accident!

[changed]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My dad was on the brink of being an Atheist in an angry phase. But he wore his until he passed on. I still wear mine, I'm way to used to them I guess.

Interesting.  There is a lot of pain surrounding the temple and garments for me - they were not a protection to me or my family (who were abused by those with temple recommends, and those wearing garments).  Garments are supposed to represent fidelity, but they now represent abuse to me because of the people I had to deal with who wore them.  

I do wear modest clothing, but when it comes to our body, I think we will be judged more on the services and work we did than the clothing that we wore.

"I don't want to drive up to the pearly gates in a shiny sports car, wearing beautifully, tailored clothes, my hair expertly coiffed, and with long, perfectly manicured fingernails. I want to drive up in a station wagon that has mud on the wheels from taking kids to scout camp. I want to be there with grass stains on my shoes from mowing Sisters Schenk's lawn. I want to be there with a smudge of peanut butter on my shirt from making sandwiches for a sick neighbors children. I want to be there with a little dirt under my fingernails from helping to weed someone's garden. I want to be there with children's sticky kisses on my cheeks and the tears of a friend on my shoulder. I want the Lord to know I was really here and that I really lived." -Marjorie Hinckley

I group religious clothing into the same category as religious statues, buildings, or other tangible materialistic symbolic artifacts.  I appreciate that the LDS church does not use rosary beads or statues or crosses etc.  While such objects can be valuable reminders they can easily turn into idolatrous distractions from the intangible goals. 

[changed]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

A broken covenant is something a faithful member will always condemn, regardless of whether you still believe in that covenant.  It was a promise you made to God, not the Church.

I do not remember covenanting to wear the garment?  There are instructions and commandments, and then there are covenants.  I would place g's into the "instructions" category, I believe everyone is "instructed" to wear it.  

What do you think would constitute breaking that instruction?  I assume everyone takes off their g's - they are not going against that instruction every time they get dressed, right?  

Edited May 22, 2019 by changed

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, changed said:

Interesting.  There is a lot of pain surrounding the temple and garments for me - they were not a protection to me or my family (who were abused by those with temple recommends, and those wearing garments).  Garments are supposed to represent fidelity, but they now represent abuse to me because of the people I had to deal with who wore them.  

I do wear modest clothing, but when it comes to our body, I think we will be judged more on the services and work we did than the clothing that we wore.

"I don't want to drive up to the pearly gates in a shiny sports car, wearing beautifully, tailored clothes, my hair expertly coiffed, and with long, perfectly manicured fingernails. I want to drive up in a station wagon that has mud on the wheels from taking kids to scout camp. I want to be there with grass stains on my shoes from mowing Sisters Schenk's lawn. I want to be there with a smudge of peanut butter on my shirt from making sandwiches for a sick neighbors children. I want to be there with a little dirt under my fingernails from helping to weed someone's garden. I want to be there with children's sticky kisses on my cheeks and the tears of a friend on my shoulder. I want the Lord to know I was really here and that I really lived." -Marjorie Hinckley

I group religious clothing into the same category as religious statues, buildings, or other tangible materialistic symbolic artifacts.  I appreciate that the LDS church does not use rosary beads or statues or crosses etc.  While such objects can be valuable reminders they can easily turn into idolatrous distractions from the intangible goals. 

I honestly wear mine because of my MIL and mostly because I can't stand my skin with just a bra. So uncomfortable until I find something. Also, the bottoms in underwear are difficult to find something similar as well. I'm in need of a slimming material that doesn't feel too girdle like. Or it's subconscious as well, grown too use to them.

[Calm]

6 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. 

It has been awhile, but last time I went in person to the Orem store, mine wasn't current and they wouldn't let me buy.  I never tried buying online without it being current.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I’m pretty sure they just need your membership number. They probably ask for a TR to get your number off of it. 

It must be dumb luck that all I've given is my name and most likely shown my I.D.