Is there a covenant about wearing temple garments in the temple, if not, was there?

[Tacenda]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/29/lds-church-steps-up-this-message/

Stumbled across this article about the church being more strict about wearing temple garments. In the SLTrib it mentions members don't make covenants in the temple to wear them. So basically is it just policy and the youth don't wear them day and night like people in my age group (sixties) have? Or not liking to wear them when working out at the gym etc. many youth wear workout type clothes all week and think it's fine to just wear garments on Sundays and at the temple or special occasions. 

There have been problems while wearing them for women who suffer yeast infections and also urinary tract infections from wearing the garment. I still wear mine at all times except maybe playing certain sports and swimming. 

So question, should there be a covenant involved or should we assume it's more policy? Or is there a covenant about wearing the garments in the temple? Now I vaguely remember there is something in the temple about wearing them. Is there? Or has there been and then something changed and then soon there was no mentioning it in the temple but maybe will be again since leaders are cracking down on the youth thinking they're free to choose when to. 

And if no covenants are made in the temple, should it be a choice? Or is policy enough to make one obey despite problems when wearing them.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Put On Thy Strength, O Zion

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/46bednar?lang=eng

 

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Put On Thy Strength, O Zion

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/46bednar?lang=eng

 

That is not about temple garments and Elder Bednar doesn’t even imply they are related.

[Rain]

Nutshell - not clearly, in covenant form since at least 1990.

long answer: If you are talking about the covenants that are clearly asked in covenant form and the person agrees or not there hasn't been one about garments since at least 1990.  I only went a few times before that so I don't remember the covenants from then.  

There will be people who will tell you how garments are part of covenants in quite a few ways, but none in the clear, covenant form ways I mentioned above.

Where one could find a mention of them together was the temple reccomend interview where it asks if you have been wearing them as you covenanted. I never caught though that you don't covenant (at least in the clear way as you do with the others) to wear them till @HappyJackWagon mentioned so I started paying attention for it and he was right.  I then asked by bishop and stake presidency when they asked the question, where the covenant was was that you make it and they couldn't tell me.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not about temple garments and Elder Bednar doesn’t even imply they are related.

It absolutely is.

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/29/lds-church-steps-up-this-message/

Stumbled across this article about the church being more strict about wearing temple garments. In the SLTrib it mentions members don't make covenants in the temple to wear them. So basically is it just policy and the youth don't wear them day and night like people in my age group (sixties) have? Or not liking to wear them when working out at the gym etc. many youth wear workout type clothes all week and think it's fine to just wear garments on Sundays and at the temple or special occasions. 

There have been problems while wearing them for women who suffer yeast infections and also urinary tract infections from wearing the garment. I still wear mine at all times except maybe playing certain sports and swimming. 

So question, should there be a covenant involved or should we assume it's more policy? Or is there a covenant about wearing the garments in the temple? Now I vaguely remember there is something in the temple about wearing them. Is there? Or has there been and then something changed and then soon there was no mentioning it in the temple but maybe will be again since leaders are cracking down on the youth thinking they're free to choose when to. 

And if no covenants are made in the temple, should it be a choice? Or is policy enough to make one obey despite problems when wearing them.

I consider the entire initiatory and endowment ceremonies themselves as covenants. I think members can adjust when and how they wear them to accommodate certain activities and medical issues. 

[2BizE]

There is not a temple covenant to wear garments. The instruction (not part of the temple covenants) is to wear them throughout your life, which does not specify to wear them 24/7, day and night. 

[rpn]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

There is not a temple covenant to wear garments. The instruction (not part of the temple covenants) is to wear them throughout your life, which does not specify to wear them 24/7, day and night. 

But the handbook instructions about garments (read at TR interviews)  are clear that that is required.    So there is an internal church disconnect of expectations.   So do we get extra points for wearing them as much we can?   Are we clearly not celestial material if we are more lax?  Does it depend on why?

[bluebell]

I do think that we promise to wear our garments when we go through initiatory and receive the endowment, and I think that there are some members who aren't wearing them in ways that they have promised to wear them and are finding reasons not to so they can wear clothing that otherwise does not work with garments (which is between them, God, and their bishop who is called as a judge in Israel).

But I think this issue is another one where we are seeing the fruits of overlooking or ignoring women's experiences for so long.  A lot of women have health issues caused by garments (due to the fit and the type of cloth, especially in hot and humid climates).  Many women find the designs to be extremely uncomfortable to the point of them causing some suffering.  And then there's wearing them when you are on your period, which is a whole different can of worms.

I think that listening to women and working specifically with the body that God has given us, will greatly cut down on women pushing back against wearing them as we've been instructed.  Once that has been accomplished it will be much easier for the church to hold members accountable (via stronger teachings and directives, for example) for those times they are justifying not wearing the garment for sinful reasons.

 

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

There is not a temple covenant to wear garments. The instruction (not part of the temple covenants) is to wear them throughout your life, which does not specify to wear them 24/7, day and night. 

... I agree with you. It's a strange feeling...

[juliann]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not about temple garments and Elder Bednar doesn’t even imply they are related.

Nor is there any citation for the King supplying robes for everyone, aside from an article written by some guy who established a church. And he provides no citations at all. So I call bogus on Elder Bednar's claim about wedding garments. 

[juliann]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/29/lds-church-steps-up-this-message/

Stumbled across this article about the church being more strict about wearing temple garments. In the SLTrib it mentions members don't make covenants in the temple to wear them. So basically is it just policy and the youth don't wear them day and night like people in my age group (sixties) have? Or not liking to wear them when working out at the gym etc. many youth wear workout type clothes all week and think it's fine to just wear garments on Sundays and at the temple or special occasions. 

There have been problems while wearing them for women who suffer yeast infections and also urinary tract infections from wearing the garment. I still wear mine at all times except maybe playing certain sports and swimming. 

So question, should there be a covenant involved or should we assume it's more policy? Or is there a covenant about wearing the garments in the temple? Now I vaguely remember there is something in the temple about wearing them. Is there? Or has there been and then something changed and then soon there was no mentioning it in the temple but maybe will be again since leaders are cracking down on the youth thinking they're free to choose when to. 

And if no covenants are made in the temple, should it be a choice? Or is policy enough to make one obey despite problems when wearing them.

Sounds like they are trying to do another round of retrenchment. This is an odd thing to add to Sis. Dennis' talk and I don't appreciate him targeting women. "Yoga pants?" That is insulting. 

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, juliann said:

Sounds like they are trying to do another round of retrenchment. This is an odd thing to add to Sis. Dennis' talk and I don't appreciate him targeting women. "Yoga pants?" That is insulting. 

Not addressing the legitimate health problems that women sometimes experience wearing garments? No, okay.

Yoga pants made me laugh. This was triggered by an anecdote this guy heard about from a friend isn’t it?

[2BizE]

5 hours ago, rpn said:

But the handbook instructions about garments (read at TR interviews)  are clear that that is required.    So there is an internal church disconnect of expectations.   So do we get extra points for wearing them as much we can?   Are we clearly not celestial material if we are more lax?  Does it depend on why?

It was Joseph Smith that said to teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. Why not take that approach rather than micro managing peoples underwear?

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

6 hours ago, rpn said:

But the handbook instructions about garments (read at TR interviews)  are clear that that is required.    So there is an internal church disconnect of expectations.   So do we get extra points for wearing them as much we can?   Are we clearly not celestial material if we are more lax?  Does it depend on why?

It was Joseph Smith that said to teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. Why not take that approach rather than micro managing peoples underwear?

Another scripture I like to use:

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."
(D&C 58: 26)
I think God knows what is in our hearts and our reasons for sometimes not wearing the garment for medical issues. He already knows if we are celestial material or not, with or without the garments. We obey as well as we physically can. 

[juliann]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not addressing the legitimate health problems that women sometimes experience wearing garments? No, okay.

Yoga pants made me laugh. This was triggered by an anecdote this guy heard about from a friend isn’t it?

What anecdote?

[mfbukowski]

Simply go and LISTEN to the initiatories. Yes, if you accept the Covenants of the endowment, this is one made clear in the initiatories, in the very last section, before leaving the initiatory rooms.

In the olden days before 1990, 🤔 the patron wore a closed poncho type garment called a "shield" into the initiatory  booth, and the worker assisted in placing a one piece temple garment  around the ankles of the patron, the neckline being wide enough for the patron to step into, while standing and covered by the shield. The patron then pulled up, still wearing the shield covering the body, in full, the garment, inside the shield and over the shoulders. No nudity ever of course.

Two piece garments came later.

Then, after receiving their garment, the patron, still wearing the shield, returned to their locker, put on the usual temple whites, THEN went to a "lecture" given by a temple President assuring that they had been taught that the garments were two be worn 24-7.

Then and only then, a worker assisted them in getting to the garden room from wherever the "lecture" was given

I know this because I was a temple worker then, and helped with this many many times.

Today the patrons simply put on the garments and temple whites, go and do their initiatories which are now mostly symbolic, where the patron is "authorized" to wear the garments.

The lecture is then given before the rest of the endowment begins.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Another scripture I like to use:

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."
(D&C 58: 26)
I think God knows what is in our hearts and our reasons for sometimes not wearing the garment for medical issues. He already knows if we are celestial material or not, with or without the garments. We obey as well as we physically can. 

Yes, and this is what is taught. If you go swimming, wear a bathing suit! 😳😱 If you have a basketball uniform go play and then put your g's back on!

I have escorted many newbies who don't even remember all these details.  It's basic stuff and I am surprised so many forget it so fast.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

It was Joseph Smith that said to teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. Why not take that approach rather than micro managing peoples underwear?

The tradition of wearing special vestments is done in many religions- perhaps all.  We just, for convenience, wear ours where they don't need to be seen by the world.

Beats wearing a a nun's habit or priestly vestments or a roman collar, or funny hat.

Catholics wear scapular after making special covenants

Also they present as a reminder if one is removing them during uh, illicit activities. I trust you are old enough to understand that.

 

Edited March 31, 2024 by mfbukowski

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Also they present as a reminder if one is removing them during uh, illicit activities. I trust you are old enough to understand.

Is this an official purpose? Or a convenient one? Because if I’m planning illicit activities I’m not putting on garments that morning- or if I did, my ill intent will not be thwarted by fabric .  The decision to stomp on my own commitments happened long before the point I’m removing my draws. 

Edited March 31, 2024 by MustardSeed

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

Edited March 31, 2024 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

What anecdote?

I am just guessing someone mentioned to him that women are wearing yoga pants instead of garments and that is why he talked about them.

[juliann]

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am just guessing someone mentioned to him that women are wearing yoga pants instead of garments and that is why he talked about them.

I doubt he knows the difference between yoga pants, leggings, and exercise tights, the later two probably the real beef. Because he is singling out younger women in particular, they don't tend to wear garments under tight exercise clothing. One of the things that I found unusual in SLC was so many women wearing exercise clothing when shopping. 

This seems more of an attempt to control clothing with garments merely being the means. There would be no point in targeting women and yoga pants if it was only about underwear. At least it didn't go into modesty rhetoric but it is still men policing women's bodies (and underwear) which is never a good look. 

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Is this an official purpose? Or a convenient one? Because if I’m planning illicit activities I’m not putting on garments that morning- or if I did, my ill intent will not be thwarted by fabric .  The decision to stomp on my own commitments happened long before the point I’m removing my draws. 

This made me laugh, but it is so true. 

[Tacenda]

Thanks for all your responses everyone.