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

[JLHPROF]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:36 AM, Teancum said:

Yea the Jesus is a tricky fellow.  He might give you the boot for not wearing the proper underwear.😏

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.

[longview]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

This is a wonderful reference. As well as Elder Bednar's masterful discourse on the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Oct 2022).

This morning I really appreciated reading Sister J. Anette Dennis' talk from last conference titled "Put Ye On the Lord Jesus Christ". She says that having the garment on is putting Jesus on yourself, one of the ways of giving a sign to God that we reverence Him. Below is the quote that I highlighted:

Quote

In many religious traditions, special outer clothing is worn as a symbol of a person’s beliefs and commitment to God,²⁸ and ceremonial clothing is often worn by those leading worship services. Those sacred vestments carry deep meaning for those who wear them. We read in scripture that in ancient times, sacred ceremonial clothing was also worn in conjunction with temple rituals.²⁹

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, those of us who have chosen to make covenants with God in the house of the Lord wear sacred ceremonial outer clothing during temple worship, symbolic of the clothing worn in ancient temple rituals. We also wear the garment of the holy priesthood, both during temple worship and in our everyday lives.³⁰

The garment of the holy priesthood is deeply symbolic and also points to the Savior. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and had to leave the Garden of Eden, they were given coats of skins as a covering for them.³¹ It is likely that an animal was sacrificed to make those coats of skins—symbolic of the Savior’s own sacrifice for us. Kaphar is the basic Hebrew word for atonement, and one of its meanings is “to cover.”³² Our temple garment reminds us that the Savior and the blessings of His Atonement cover us throughout our lives. As we put on the garment of the holy priesthood each day, that beautiful symbol becomes a part of us.

In the New Testament book of Romans, we read: “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. … Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.”³³

I am so grateful for the privilege of wearing the garment of the holy priesthood to remind me that the Savior and the blessings of His infinite Atonement constantly cover me throughout my mortal journey. It also reminds me that as I keep the covenants I have made with God in the house of the Lord, I have symbolically put on Christ, who Himself is an armor of light. He will protect me from evil,³⁴ give me power and increased capacity,³⁵ and be my light and guide³⁶ through the darkness and difficulties of this world.

There is deep and beautiful symbolic meaning in the garment of the holy priesthood and its relationship to Christ. I believe that my willingness³⁷ to wear the holy garment becomes my symbol to Him.³⁸ It is my own personal sign to God, not a sign to others.³⁹

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Pretty good scripture describing garments. I searched the scripture and read through and wondered if Joseph Smith got the idea for the garment from Revelations 3:5. Then another search led me to this Ensign article that I thought was great, and how the church isn't about policing the wearing of the garment and JS's quote about the Saints being self governing.

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/temple-preparation/the-temple-garment-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-commitment?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

On 4/13/2024 at 8:36 AM, Teancum said:

Yea the Jesus is a tricky fellow.  He might give you the boot for not wearing the proper underwear.😏

That applies only to those who believe it.  Faith is a funny thing.  What you think is what you get.   Of course that applies only to this world.  But if you actually believe in a god like that, ....... hmmmm....   interesting question.  Do we create God or does God create us?

I believe both without contradiction, but with as a play on words.   --- but who cares.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Quote

Those sacred vestments carry deep meaning for those who wear them.

 

Quoting "Sister J. Anette Dennis' talk from last conference titled "Put Ye On the Lord Jesus Christ"."

Rorty:

Quote

 Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.

Only descriptions that "work for you" in matters of faith are logically justifiable for your own paradigm.

If you believe it is "true" then that belief it must work for you.

So if if you believe these "sacred vestments" ARE sacred, that belief must "be true for you"

If you DO NOT believe these "sacred vestments" are sacred, then THAT that belief must "be true for you"

As always in religion, what YOU BELIEVE about religion MAKES that belief "TRUE FOR YOU", because of course either way, it makes you feel better for some reason, in some way or other.

You "get something" for believing OR not believing the principle being discussed.   Perhaps you believe that BELIEVING the principle and acting on it will take you to heaven.

 Perhaps you believe that BELIEVING the principle and acting on it will take you to heaven.  THAT belief about the belief, makes you better than others.  It gives the good old ego a little "buzz" to put down these folks who are not as good as you are.

 Perhaps you believe that NOT BELIEVING the principle and acting on it will make you smarter than others who actually believe it.   Gives the good old ego a little "buzz" to put down these stupid folks.

I'm like Rorty.

EVERYBODY is just plain dumber than we are.  What you believe is what you get.

At least until we die.

🤓 😲😱

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Quote

Those sacred vestments carry deep meaning for those who wear them.

 

Quoting "Sister J. Anette Dennis' talk from last conference titled "Put Ye On the Lord Jesus Christ"."

Rorty:

Quote

 Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.

Only descriptions that "work for you" in matters of faith are logically justifiable for your own paradigm.

If you believe it is "true" then that belief it must work for you.

So if if you believe these "sacred vestments" ARE sacred, that belief must "be true for you"

If you DO NOT believe these "sacred vestments" are sacred, then THAT that belief must "be true for you"

As always in religion, what YOU BELIEVE about religion MAKES that belief "TRUE FOR YOU", because of course either way, it makes you feel better for some reason, in some way or other.

You "get something" for believing OR not believing the principle being discussed.   Perhaps you believe that BELIEVING the principle and acting on it will take you to heaven.

 Perhaps you believe that BELIEVING the principle and acting on it will take you to heaven.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That applies only to those who believe it.  Faith is a funny thing.  What you think is what you get.   Of course that applies only to this world.  But if you actually believe in a god like that, ....... hmmmm....   interesting question.  Do we create God or does God create us?

I believe both without contradiction, but with as a play on words.   --- but who cares.

I believe in a God, and if there's a vehicle to help feel closer all the better!

[manol]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe in a God, and if there's a vehicle to help feel closer all the better!

Amen, sister.  Imo closeness to God matters far more than the specific vehicle(s) used to get there.

[Teancum]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:49 AM, JLHPROF said:

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.

As appeal to the bible as an authority is not convincing to me since I view the bible as just the writings men.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

As appeal to the bible as an authority is not convincing to me since I view the bible as just the writings men.

If you are going to insert Jesus and what He would do in a specific situation into the conversation, then how can the scriptural accounts of His teachings not be relevant to the discussion?

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe in a God, and if there's a vehicle to help feel closer all the better!

It makes no sense whatsoever to postulate that God exists and wants us to become like Him, yet there is no way for Him to communicate with us!

This is what I was pondering when I went into a Catholic chapel in a Catholic seminary for becoming a priest, after reading Moroni 10:3 to what- Moroni 10:6?

A God who cares for humanity MUST be able to communicate with each human on their own level for such a paradigm to make sense, and so we have Moroni 10 and verifying it in the Bible, James 5:1

So I prayed about it and had a life-changing religious experience.  (Don't tell Calm that I said this because she says that telling my real story is something I should not share because then those who do not have a BIG experience as I did will feel discouraged.  The fact is that I had pondered the question during my entire life, on how it is that personal revelation is over on issues like further general revelation.  Papal infallibility and is part of that whole concept and necessary for that view to make sense. 

But we believe in personal revelation, even for finding the "true church", per Moroni.

Therefore the HAS to be a way to communicate personally with God, for each of us individually.

SO the answer for every question like this is PRAY FOR AN ANSWER, and if you get a "Meh,it doesn't really matter"  kind of answer then follow that.  BUT if you get an emphatic feeling that it is correct OR incorrect- follow that stronger feeling, and fergitaboutit!

In my experience, such questions of a "meh" class must be re-thought, and re-prayed about perhaps many times, but keep at it, until it becomes pretty clear what God wants.  I call that one "fine-tuning repentance" . 

It takes a lot of ponderization.     But that's ok.  It is what the entire process demands sometimes!

.  

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

As appeal to the bible as an authority is not convincing to me since I view the bible as just the writings men.

And so are the words of every person who has ever written anything.  Some see Joseph as being the same, or worse.  The Declaration of Independence was too.  Every law we have as a society are the writings of men.  William James writes the writings of men.  The words of atheists are the philosophies of men, every preacher speaks in the words of men.  Every professor and scholar, historian and philosopher, speaks in the languages of men.

For me, the problem is that scriptures are the philosophies of men mangled by scripture. 

So what?

WE get to decide what works for us- what our minds find out about the "reality" they perceive, BUT EVERYTHING we believe is in some sense a "philosophy of men".

Even if you personally SEE God, everyone will THINK that your description is simply one more example of the "words of men", and they would be right to do so!

So what is the answer?

FIND the best paradigm invented by men that fits what your "GUT"= "YOUR TRUTH MACHINE" teaches.  Others call it something else.

SO for me the argument that the "Bible is the words of men" is true, but guess what?

So is everything else.

And remember that God, in the LDS paradigm, is an exalted MAN, so even the word of God is still a "Philosophy of Men".

That's one of the things I love about the LDS paradigm.   It tells the truth, that men created God and God created humanity, after His own Image.

It's inescapable and as new as A=A. 

 

 

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It makes no sense whatsoever to postulate that God exists and wants us to become like Him, yet there is no way for Him to communicate with us!

This is what I was pondering when I went into a Catholic chapel in a Catholic seminary for becoming a priest, after reading Moroni 10:3 to what- Moroni 10:6?

A God who cares for humanity MUST be able to communicate with each human on their own level for such a paradigm to make sense, and so we have Moroni 10 and verifying it in the Bible, James 5:1

So I prayed about it and had a life-changing religious experience.  (Don't tell Calm that I said this because she says that telling my real story is something I should not share because then those who do not have a BIG experience as I did will feel discouraged.  The fact is that I had pondered the question during my entire life, on how it is that personal revelation is over on issues like further general revelation.  Papal infallibility and is part of that whole concept and necessary for that view to make sense. 

But we believe in personal revelation, even for finding the "true church", per Moroni.

Therefore the HAS to be a way to communicate personally with God, for each of us individually.

SO the answer for every question like this is PRAY FOR AN ANSWER, and if you get a "Meh,it doesn't really matter"  kind of answer then follow that.  BUT if you get an emphatic feeling that it is correct OR incorrect- follow that stronger feeling, and fergitaboutit!

In my experience, such questions of a "meh" class must be re-thought, and re-prayed about perhaps many times, but keep at it, until it becomes pretty clear what God wants.  I call that one "fine-tuning repentance" . 

It takes a lot of ponderization.     But that's ok.  It is what the entire process demands sometimes!

.  

 

Thanks for sharing! I feel fine after reading, haha!  Thanks for the advice that I should fine tune the ability to get to know what God wants. 

I'm truly a lazy person on so many levels, and it's glaring how lazy I am in fine-tuning, sort of just gave up praying. Think of Him throughout most days. Like I think of my parents who have passed. I feel angry somewhat for what my mom went through by getting Alzheimer's at such a young age, 62 or even younger possibly. Signs at 62 though. She was robbed of so much, just not fair. My family was robbed too. But I know that everyone out there has a story with a loved one being taken too young, or a loved one that suffered horribly. So I know I shouldn't feel picked on by God. 

But my parents are a big reason I hold on to hope of a God, and right up there is the world and all that it has in it, no way is it just nature taking it's course and the so called Big Bang theory. If it happened it can never explain it, IMO. 

[2BizE]

On 4/13/2024 at 3:23 PM, bluebell said:

Can I ask when it was that you last did an initiatory?  

Bluebell,

It has probably been about 20 years since I have done washings and anointings in the temple. Back when I was a temple worker.  The placing of the garment is done in an ordinance with the instruction “which you should wear throughout your life…”.  A unique thing about the garment ordinance is it does not mention Jesus Christ or end in “amen”.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Bluebell,

It has probably been about 20 years since I have done washings and anointings in the temple. Back when I was a temple worker.  The placing of the garment is done in an ordinance with the instruction “which you should wear throughout your life…”.  A unique thing about the garment ordinance is it does not mention Jesus Christ or end in “amen”.

Thanks for answering. I asked because the wording at that part of the initiatory has changed and Jesus Christ is an important part now.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 ...   if it happened it can never explain it, IMO. 

That's one of the great insights I think that eventually killed Positivism- it's main paradigm finally proved that IF all theories needed objective evidence to be true, then Positivism could not be true because there was no empirical evidence for Positivism itself!  "If it happened, (Positivism being true) positivism itself could not be true because there was no evidence for it."   

As far as evolution, think of something like baking bread (which I have never done, so my analogy might not work well )  To me it is possible that God used natural processes to influence it- LIKE, maybe, baking bread. You put in the yeast and get it rising, but then you notice that it is not rising they way you wanted it, so you tweak something (adding more yeast, heating or cooling the mixture etc. to achieve the goal you want.

So something in primate evolution, say is not going the way it was planned, so something is done to change the environment which causes trees, say to grow, or killing off trees with a fire or two caused by lightning or whatever, so that primates evolved according to Plan A instead of Plan B

That is a very simple explanation because I am a simpleton myself, but hopefully it expresses that God could "tweak" evolution to get it going the way he wanted.   He always knew that some "tweaking " was necessary as part of the process, as perhaps a baker knows that at some point he/she has to add sugar, or put it in the oven at a higher or lower temperature etc,  to produce the desired results.

So I think that "guided evolution" is more the way I see it.

Probably growing a crop would be a better analogy, where the farmer treated some area with elements xyz, watered more or less etc. to achieve what he thought made for a "better crop"

So yes, "if evolution ever happened" seeing it as "guided evolution" COULD in fact "explain it" yet all the processes are perfectly natural.

But of course this theory itself is just a "tweak" in a paradigm, following the way we humans can see the world, so it is no more "true or false" than any other.  

Rorty yet again!  

 "To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations."

 

 

Edited April 23, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's one of the great insights I think that eventually killed Positivism- it's main paradigm finally proved that IF all theories needed objective evidence to be true, then Positivism could not be true because there was no empirical evidence for Positivism itself!  "If it happened, (Positivism being true) positivism itself could not be true because there was no evidence for it."   

As far as evolution, think of something like baking bread (which I have never done, so my analogy might not work well )  To me it is possible that God used natural processes to influence it- LIKE, maybe, baking bread. You put in the yeast and get it rising, but then you notice that it is not rising they way you wanted it, so you tweak something (adding more yeast, heating or cooling the mixture etc. to achieve the goal you want.

So something in primate evolution, say is not going the way it was planned, so something is done to change the environment which causes trees, say to grow, or killing off trees with a fire or two caused by lightning or whatever, so that primates evolved according to Plan A instead of Plan B

That is a very simple explanation because I am a simpleton myself, but hopefully it expresses that God could "tweak" evolution to get it going the way he wanted.   He always knew that some "tweaking " was necessary as part of the process, as perhaps a baker knows that at some point he/she has to add sugar, or put it in the oven at a higher or lower temperature etc,  to produce the desired results.

So I think that "guided evolution" is more the way I see it.

Probably growing a crop would be a better analogy, where the farmer treated some area with elements xyz, watered more or less etc. to achieve what he thought made for a "better crop"

So yes, "if evolution ever happened" seeing it as "guided evolution" COULD in fact "explain it" yet all the processes are perfectly natural.

But of course this theory itself is just a "tweak" in a paradigm, following the way we humans can see the world, so it is no more "true or false" than any other.  

Rorty yet again!  

 "To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations."

 

 

I'm more thinking of the intricacies of all the species out there. Plants, insects, animals, etc. That's way more than planting the seed of evolution to me, but I don't know much about evolution. I had a high school teacher teach evolution, and he even walked exactly like an ape, I think to convince the class of evolution. I believe it could be that, but like you said, God or a supreme being started it.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm more thinking of the intricacies of all the species out there. Plants, insects, animals, etc. That's way more than planting the seed of evolution to me, but I don't know much about evolution. I had a high school teacher teach evolution, and he even walked exactly like an ape, I think to convince the class of evolution. I believe it could be that, but like you said, God or a supreme being started it.

Really evolution is about the ability of an organism to adapt to the surroundings, and then how those adaptations are passed on to new organisms. 

If you study it out, I think you will find it a very useful and believable paradigm.  In deserts, a beautiful rose garden, unwatered, will not survive. Perhaps the plants that do not require so much water will slowly invade the area allocated to the roses, and over years no trace of the roses will remain.  

That is obvious, but the point is that changing the environment will change the organisms that can live in that region.   Some plants that can tolerate the new dryer climate may be able to survive better, say, because their leaf structure is larger and channels what moisture there is, into the center of the plant, allowing the roots to get more water than others of the same species.   Over time, there will be little changes of all kinds in these plants, but those with larger leaves will do better.  And so slowly the very nature of the plants will be altered and the DNA of each generation will pass on their DNA, which will be for larger leaves.  

And so it goes, and at some point the changed organism will be classified, by human scientists, to be "a different species" than the small leaf plants that have become extinct.

So that's all there is to it. 

So "ALL" God has  to do is tweak the amount of rain an area has - using some kind of natural means- winds off the sea, etc.- I certainly don't know nuttin" "bout 'at   and poof- everything changes!

 

 

[Tacenda]

I really liked this little clip or a youtube from Sister Eubanks and Elder Martinez. Sister Eubanks mentioned that the time you wouldn't want to wear them for sure is swimming, and she wouldn't want to give a list of when either, but that the church is aware of the difficulties of wearing them can be with either un-breathable fabric and other things that the church is working on changing. Good to know!  I'm still wearing mine, so looking forward to see what will come of this.

 

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I really liked this little clip or a youtube from Sister Eubanks and Elder Martinez. Sister Eubanks mentioned that the time you wouldn't want to wear them for sure is swimming, and she wouldn't want to give a list of when either, but that the church is aware of the difficulties of wearing them can be with either un-breathable fabric and other things that the church is working on changing. Good to know!  I'm still wearing mine, so looking forward to see what will come of this.

 

I like that.  It's a faith-filled perspective and acknowledges practical issues as well.

[Stargazer]

On 4/14/2024 at 5:18 PM, Calm said:

I really hope it occurred to more women or that they were taught it was okay, but I do know the women I have talked to about it have always seemed to be like me, told in the temple to wear it like underwear. Like wearing the bra over garments and a few other things, this appears to have become in the past an unfortunate unwritten rule here in the US instead of letting women know there were other options one could choose.

Apologies for getting to this very late.

My late wife was a German lady of Prussian heritage, and she was very systematic about how things were supposed to be done. When we were first married I asked her why she was wearing her bra over her garments, and she said that was how garments were supposed to be worn. I didn't ask her about the provenance of the instruction, as it didn't occur to me. I just accepted it at face value. As for me, a guy, there were no instructions in it at all. Just wear it for the rest of your life. It never occurred to me to wear underwear in addition to the garment, because I just assumed it was underwear. 

My British Bride wears her garment top under her bra, too. I just asked her about it, and she says she prefers it that way because besides having the understanding that that was how it was supposed to be, she finds that the garment prevents bra-chafing. "Bra-chafing"! There's something I had never heard of before. I learn something new every day. She does understand now that it's optional, over or under.

On 4/14/2024 at 5:18 PM, Calm said:

I was actually thinking of going there, but was uncertain if the men on the board could handle it, lol.

We should put up warnings…time to cover your eyes if you have delicate sensibilities, men.  😛 

LOL, no delicate sensibilities here. 

I am insufficiently a Pharisee to get worked up over "going commando" when necessary. Before I was endowed I would do this occasionally. Afterwards, too. I didn't feel like I was going to hell for it. Sometimes it is just too hot at night to wear anything. Rarely, but it happens. But I do not actually like it. I feel naked without my garments on. <- Inadvertant humor there...

Back in the days when the only garments available were one-piece, I kept a set of "gentile" underwear for doctor visits. In the days of two-piece garments, that's no longer needed.

My favorite Boy Scout song: Pink Pajamas (sung to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic)

I wear my pink pajamas, in the summer when it's hot.
I wear my flannel nighties in the winter when it's not.
And sometimes in the springtime and sometimes in the fall,
I jump right in between the sheets with nothing on at all.

Chorus:
Glory, glory, Hallelujah;
Glory, glory, What's it to you?
Balmy breezes blowing through ya,
With nothing on at all.

[Stargazer]

On 4/14/2024 at 7:07 PM, bluebell said:

Did everyone else get the new temple recommend interview questions and blurb on wearing garments read to them over the pulpit today in sacrament meeting?  Our bishop said he was asked to read it but I wasn't sure if it was just our Stake or church wide. 

Kind of interesting since I don't think they've ever done that with the other interview question changes they've made over the years.

I hate to admit this, but I was recently put into our bishopric (kicking and screaming because I liked my old calling too much). This wouldn't have happened in my old ward because they knew me all too well... but grumble, grumble, nevermind.

Anyway, they changed the wording of the interview between my first recommend interview and my second. I didn't notice right away until this topic started kicking off about it. I like the changes.

As for reading that over the pulpit, I'm pretty sure that was a local decision. The message announcing it in the Official Communications Library says nothing about announcing it. If announcements are supposed to be read over the pulpit, they always include that directive in the official communication.

 

[Stargazer]

On 4/14/2024 at 7:31 PM, MustardSeed said:

Hopefully reasonable changes will be made to the garment to make the practice of wearing them more comfortable for women so that the younger generation will comply and receive the blessings of the temple garment, as well as older folks who would benefit as well. 

Garments used to make no concessions for male anatomy, but recently that has changed. I am actually not so keen on that. Probably because I'm old, decrepit, and like things the way they used to be. 

[Tacenda]

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Apologies for getting to this very late.

My late wife was a German lady of Prussian heritage, and she was very systematic about how things were supposed to be done. When we were first married I asked her why she was wearing her bra over her garments, and she said that was how garments were supposed to be worn. I didn't ask her about the provenance of the instruction, as it didn't occur to me. I just accepted it at face value. As for me, a guy, there were no instructions in it at all. Just wear it for the rest of your life. It never occurred to me to wear underwear in addition to the garment, because I just assumed it was underwear. 

My British Bride wears her garment top under her bra, too. I just asked her about it, and she says she prefers it that way because besides having the understanding that that was how it was supposed to be, she finds that the garment prevents bra-chafing. "Bra-chafing"! There's something I had never heard of before. I learn something new every day. She does understand now that it's optional, over or under.

LOL, no delicate sensibilities here. 

I am insufficiently a Pharisee to get worked up over "going commando" when necessary. Before I was endowed I would do this occasionally. Afterwards, too. I didn't feel like I was going to hell for it. Sometimes it is just too hot at night to wear anything. Rarely, but it happens. But I do not actually like it. I feel naked without my garments on. <- Inadvertant humor there...

Back in the days when the only garments available were one-piece, I kept a set of "gentile" underwear for doctor visits. In the days of two-piece garments, that's no longer needed.

My favorite Boy Scout song: Pink Pajamas (sung to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic)

I wear my pink pajamas, in the summer when it's hot.
I wear my flannel nighties in the winter when it's not.
And sometimes in the springtime and sometimes in the fall,
I jump right in between the sheets with nothing on at all.

Chorus:
Glory, glory, Hallelujah;
Glory, glory, What's it to you?
Balmy breezes blowing through ya,
With nothing on at all.

I just had to respond to this. I've told it many times I bet on here, so sorry if you've seen this comment before. But husband and I attended a Diana Ross concert many years ago, and she had the audience come on the stage and sing and dance with her to the song of "Muscles". Well one guy was up and she pulled up his shirt to see his muscles and thought he was wearing a t-shirt but he apparently was wearing the one piece garment and she couldn't figure out why his t-shirt wouldn't go up, lol. Most in the audience knew though, poor guy probably didn't know how to tell her.

[Stargazer]

On 4/22/2024 at 10:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

Don't tell Calm that I said this because she says that telling my real story is something I should not share because then those who do not have a BIG experience as I did will feel discouraged.

My experience was so low-key as to be below the lowest note on a piano. 

But I am not at all discouraged. 

Before I met my first Mormon, I already owned a copy of the Book of Mormon. I love books, and I think I acquired it due to a relative giving me some books they didn't want any longer. But I don't actually remember how I got it. It was just in my bookcase. I knew it had something to do with Mormonism, but that's it. One day I picked it up and read the first page. 1 Nephi 1:1-4. That was as far as I got. Interesting, but not that interesting. 

A few years later when I was 13 I was walking home from school and saw another boy walking on the other side of the street. For some reason (later I realized why, but I was almost pathologically shy at that time) I crossed the street and introduced myself. Within three minutes I knew he was a Mormon, because I asked him what he wanted to do when he grew up, and he said he wanted to go on a mission. "Are you a Catholic?" I asked. He replied, "No, I'm a Mormon!" And I started asking questions. He told me about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the Lamanites and the Nephites, and so on. I was fascinated and kept walking with him, well past my turnoff. To cut things short, a year later I was baptized. When I decided that I was going to serve a mission I decided to read the Book of Mormon cover to cover, finally, and then exercise Moroni 10:4-6. So I did. I remember closing up the book after reading the last page, getting down on my knees and asking God if the Book of Mormon were true. And got nothing. Over the next few days I prayed several times asking about whether the Book of Mormon were true to no avail whatsoever. At that point I was not exactly angry, but I was highly annoyed with God. Why wasn't He telling me that the Book of Mormon were true? And then it hit me: I already knew. I had known for years that it was true. Upon due consideration, I realized that I had my testimony almost from the moment that young man had started telling me about it. It was real for me, from that moment. And it got realer and realer over time. 

I'm happy for people who have had profound spiritual experiences in discovering the truth of the Book of Mormon. But the fact is, we each learn the truth according to God's intimate understanding of each of us. Be it profound or be it subtle, however it is revealed to us, the book is the Word of God.