Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Outdated sermons- is there benefit to discussing? Denouncing? Denying?


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Wait what?  Like only in the temple, right? 

Mine was in the temple, in the chapel while we were waiting for a ceremony…I can’t remember if it was before my sealing or before the initiatory.  There was nothing ritual about it, just an older woman giving best advice she knew based on her experience.  That is why I was later shocked to hear women saying they saw that instruction as a commandment essentially.  I was really blessed to have a laid back instructor.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Were you told you can only where a white or nude bra with garments all the time? Like no black bras ever? Or white and nude while in the temple. I thought white bras were recommended while in the temple?

I was told if I wanted to wear a bra under the garment  (in and out of the temple) it needed to be white or nude.  I am guessing the matron was concerned about the garments not appearing to be white due to the translucent nature of them.  Would ruin the purity symbolism.  I am not sure about what color the bra needs to be I’m the temple, but certainly white looks best if worn over garments in my view and makes the most sense in the temple where all clothing is to be white.  Even nude would look weird if worn over a garment and one’s temple clothing was slightly seethrough and/or snug…would need a full length slip, which means more heat…

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

That instruction did not occur during the endowment though, at least not mine (and it was do whatever worked best as long as bra was white or nude).

Was there instruction given in the endowment at all? (Pre 1990). I only went a couple of times before my mission when it changed. The instruction I was given was in a small room by the dressing room (that's where my friend, sister-in-law and daughter got it as well). I don't remember anything about color, but was taught about placement for mine. The only other thing I remember was there were 6 other women there all with engagement rings and the matron kept going on about all of us brides, but nothing about me as a missionary.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Rain said:

The only other thing I remember was there were 6 other women there all with engagement rings and the matron kept going on about all of us brides, but nothing about me as a missionary.

I was with about six other young men and was the only one without a mission call ... or a future wife ...

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I was with about six other young men and was the only one without a mission call ...

Did they keep calling you a missionary?  I didn't care about being different.  I just didn't want to be called a bride.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Rain said:

Did they keep calling you a missionary?

Yep. That was the entire focus of the 'prep talk', including, for example, how to care for temple garments on our missions. We were asked to stand one-by-one and tell everyone where we would be serving. No one seemed to know what to do with me.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Rain said:

Was there instruction given in the endowment at all? (Pre 1990). I only went a couple of times before my mission when it changed. The instruction I was given was in a small room by the dressing room (that's where my friend, sister-in-law and daughter got it as well). I don't remember anything about color, but was taught about placement for mine. The only other thing I remember was there were 6 other women there all with engagement rings and the matron kept going on about all of us brides, but nothing about me as a missionary.

I don’t remember anything specific, sorry.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I was told if I wanted to wear a bra under the garment  (in and out of the temple) it needed to be white or nude.  I am guessing the matron was concerned about the garments not appearing to be white due to the translucent nature of them.  Would ruin the purity symbolism.  I am not sure about what color the bra needs to be I’m the temple, but certainly white looks best if worn over garments in my view and makes the most sense in the temple where all clothing is to be white.  Even nude would look weird if worn over a garment and one’s temple clothing was slightly seethrough and/or snug…would need a full length slip, which means more heat…

I’ve never heard that. Only to wear white in the temple. I don’t like wearing it under. Such a pain when going to bed.

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Rain said:

Was there instruction given in the endowment at all? (Pre 1990). I only went a couple of times before my mission when it changed. The instruction I was given was in a small room by the dressing room (that's where my friend, sister-in-law and daughter got it as well). I don't remember anything about color, but was taught about placement for mine. The only other thing I remember was there were 6 other women there all with engagement rings and the matron kept going on about all of us brides, but nothing about me as a missionary.

I remember a little room with others as well, and told to wear my bra over the garment. Which now I am unable to wear my bra on the skin, so uncomfortable. I wear my garments still because I'm so use to it. If I'm told I can't any longer I'll be up a creek!

But why I ask about the endowment question is because someone that I read on my Faith Journey FB group, (most all of them are millennial and younger) said that those going for the first time now are getting different messages, and even to the point of getting permission to choose and only have to wear them in the temple.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

time now are getting different messages, and even to the point of getting permission to choose and only have to wear them in the temple.

I find that very hard to believe. It sounds like a faith promoting rumor (faith in hearing what you want to hear).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I remember a little room with others as well, and told to wear my bra over the garment. Which now I am unable to wear my bra on the skin, so uncomfortable. I wear my garments still because I'm so use to it. If I'm told I can't any longer I'll be up a creek!

But why I ask about the endowment question is because someone that I read on my Faith Journey FB group, (most all of them are millennial and younger) said that those going for the first time now are getting different messages, and even to the point of getting permission to choose and only have to wear them in the temple.

I agree with Calm.  I’m 98% sure if this were true it would rip through my circles like wildfire.   I’ll let you know when and if it happens.  😅

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Calm said:

That instruction did not occur during the endowment though, at least not mine (and it was do whatever worked best as long as bra was white or nude).

That’s interesting about the color. Color was never brought up to me when I went the first time. 

Link to comment
On 1/21/2023 at 4:30 PM, CV75 said:

Here is where I take my bias to be good: we can determine if the basic doctrines of the Church true or false through a spiritual process. The messages impacted by culture, history, circumstance, expediency, etc. more often than not still tie back to those. It's OK if past messages are misinterpreted, then or today, as long as the basic ones -- the actual messages -- are not and take precedence. This is a matter of wisdom and varies from person to person, and it is possible to discuss issues in a constrictive way. It also a matter taken up by those with the keys to shed new light on, change or disavow past teachings. When this is done, we are left with applying the distillation of the basic doctrine in a polluted world.

However, such an approach would be like walking across quicksand. If it is up to each person to "filter" what is true or not renders whatever the 12 or the first presidency says inert, subjective and thus non-binding. The truth of God is absolute and exists by itself, independent of man in the sphere where God created it. We can decide to disregard it from a personal standpoint for whatever reasons we can provide as a justification. But that means that we find ourselves outside and in juxtaposition to the truth of God. If we are to question, disagree with or ignore what is uttered from the pulpit then or now, we might as well pack up and move elsewhere. The idea that a modern prophet can abrogate the revelation of an earlier prophet does not have scriptural support. Either God has spoken or He has not. And if we can't distinguish between opinion and revelation as to be certain of the will of God, then none of our truth claims are so and all can be discarded as man's wisdom. 

If the ultimate arbiter of what is true or not, what applies or not and what is relevant or not for our time is personal revelation, then we don't need the first presidency. The tension between what we now call "culture" in the church (then it was called revelation) and what is now deemed as revelation (which in turn be called culture or policy in the future) has to be resolved. We can ignore it, we can try to rationalize and contextualize it in terms of their historical setting, but they will not go away. And as they come to light and they accumulate in the public eye, no amount of apologetics will suffice. The tension is real and well documented. And the fact that very credible insiders are publishing and articulating these issues is evidence that the tension will no go away.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Islander said:

However, such an approach would be like walking across quicksand. If it is up to each person to "filter" what is true or not renders whatever the 12 or the first presidency says inert, subjective and thus non-binding. The truth of God is absolute and exists by itself, independent of man in the sphere where God created it. We can decide to disregard it from a personal standpoint for whatever reasons we can provide as a justification. But that means that we find ourselves outside and in juxtaposition to the truth of God. If we are to question, disagree with or ignore what is uttered from the pulpit then or now, we might as well pack up and move elsewhere. The idea that a modern prophet can abrogate the revelation of an earlier prophet does not have scriptural support. Either God has spoken or He has not. And if we can't distinguish between opinion and revelation as to be certain of the will of God, then none of our truth claims are so and all can be discarded as man's wisdom. 

If the ultimate arbiter of what is true or not, what applies or not and what is relevant or not for our time is personal revelation, then we don't need the first presidency. The tension between what we now call "culture" in the church (then it was called revelation) and what is now deemed as revelation (which in turn be called culture or policy in the future) has to be resolved. We can ignore it, we can try to rationalize and contextualize it in terms of their historical setting, but they will not go away. And as they come to light and they accumulate in the public eye, no amount of apologetics will suffice. The tension is real and well documented. And the fact that very credible insiders are publishing and articulating these issues is evidence that the tension will no go away.

I’m talking about the basics of the gospel, the metaphorical rock and foundation, not metaphorical quicksand. In scripture, Jesus abrogated the law of Moses, interestingly in fulfillment of that law, and the basic law remained unchanged. Later prophets of this dispensation have abrogated their own and earlier prophets’ revelations in fulfilment of the restoration, while the basics of the restoration remain unchanged.

We need the First Presidency because we need the gift of the Holy Ghost. The tension between the presence of God and mortal culture, history, circumstance, expediency, etc., the connection between the two being revelation, is par for the course. But the Holy Ghost cuts through that. I see apologetics as one form of mortal communication.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I’m a convert. Prior to receiving my endowment, I heard all sorts of “rules” about how women were to wear their garments. So I asked specific questions while in the temple on the day of my endowment, just prior to putting on the garments for the first time. I am very grateful to the sister who answered my questions, and didn’t embellish with personal preferences or antiquated “rules”. I think that contributed to my never having an issue with wearing garments. 

No doubt.  Lucky for you. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

I’m a convert. Prior to receiving my endowment, I heard all sorts of “rules” about how women were to wear their garments. So I asked specific questions while in the temple on the day of my endowment, just prior to putting on the garments for the first time. I am very grateful to the sister who answered my questions, and didn’t embellish with personal preferences or antiquated “rules”. I think that contributed to my never having an issue with wearing garments. 

I think part of the problem is that temple workers sometimes share what their own rules are and not actual rules. They just assume their rules are the actual rules.

I also think they sometimes vary from temple to temple. At one time there were quite a few temples near me. I would go to a different one each week. It was interesting to see how different temples did things differently. Sometimes you could just see it was a way that worked for that temple. Other times the workers almost seemed insistent that doing it another way was against what the Lord wanted. 

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I remember a little room with others as well, and told to wear my bra over the garment. Which now I am unable to wear my bra on the skin, so uncomfortable. I wear my garments still because I'm so use to it. If I'm told I can't any longer I'll be up a creek!

But why I ask about the endowment question is because someone that I read on my Faith Journey FB group, (most all of them are millennial and younger) said that those going for the first time now are getting different messages, and even to the point of getting permission to choose and only have to wear them in the temple.

That I haven't heard at all. I recently went in for a temple recommend interview (last 6 months) and along with the question they give a blurb going over the basic instructions, which still includes wearing the garment regularly. The exceptions are more generalized and for activities that are less suitable for them.

 

What I've seen when I was a temple worker (like 4-ish years ago) was moving from giving a hundred different forms of advice on what was appropriate with garment use/care and sticking with a single, more general church-approved message for the individual to figure out what that fully looks like for them. 

 

Funny story. When I was endowed probably 14 years ago I had two sisters in the instruction room, one older one younger. The older told me to be careful not to have my g's on the ground. The younger softened the instruction to not be so uptight. The older then tried to course correct the younger's looser standard by noting that the Garment should be cared for respectfully. I'd later hear that people would get different instructions, but I got to see it on display the day I received them. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
1 minute ago, BlueDreams said:

That I haven't heard at all. I recently went in for a temple recommend interview (last 6 months) and along with the question they give a blurb going over the basic instructions, which still includes wearing the garment regularly. The exceptions are more generalized and for activities that are less suitable for them.

 

What I've seen when I was a temple worker (like 4-ish years ago) was moving from giving a hundred different forms of advice on what was appropriate with garment use/care and sticking with a single, more general message for the individual to figure out what that fully looks like for them. 

 

With luv,

BD 

That sounds more like it, the more general message, maybe gave some a feeling they could choose when and where to wear them.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That sounds more like it, the more general message, maybe gave some a feeling they could choose when and where to wear them.

I have gotten the impression from some people around me that young people going through the temple today are much looser than previous eras With regards to which activities are reasonable for garment wearing and which are not. I think that has always been the case.  IMO.   It’s personal.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wear my garments still because I'm so use to it. If I'm told I can't any longer I'll be up a creek!

Ha! This reminds me I frequently think on having to adjust if I were ever to leave the faith and start wearing something other than garments. I have worn them for sooooo long I don't know how I would make such a transition. ; )

12 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Funny story. When I was endowed probably 14 years ago I had two sisters in the instruction room, one older one younger. The older told me to be careful not to have my g's on the ground. The younger softened the instruction to not be so uptight. The older then tried to course correct the younger's looser standard by noting that the Garment should be cared for respectfully. I'd later hear that people would get different instructions, but I got to see it on display the day I received them.

I am continually racked (might be too strong a word) with second-guessing myself when I disrobe about where I can and can't place my unlaundered garment. I imagine I will always wrestle with this. 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think part of the problem is that temple workers sometimes share what their own rules are and not actual rules. They just assume their rules are the actual rules.

I also think they sometimes vary from temple to temple. At one time there were quite a few temples near me. I would go to a different one each week. It was interesting to see how different temples did things differently. Sometimes you could just see it was a way that worked for that temple. Other times the workers almost seemed insistent that doing it another way was against what the Lord wanted. 

The pushback I got from some people when I shared that the “rules” they were given were not actually a requirement of the church was disturbing. They wouldn’t accept the possibility that something they were told was actually someone’s personal interpretation. No doubt a few think I’m going straight to hell. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Ha! This reminds me I frequently think on having to adjust if I were ever to leave the faith and start wearing something other than garments. I have worn them for sooooo long I don't know how I would make such a transition. ; )

I am continually racked (might be too strong a word) with second-guessing myself when I disrobe about where I can and can't place my unlaundered garment. I imagine I will always wrestle with this. 

Ironically seeing it on display that there was no set rule made it easy for me not to care that much. I just trying to be conscientious of taking care of them and don't over analyze the exact actions. 

 

With luv 

BD

 

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...