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

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

I think the modesty rhetoric was implied by the “yoga pants” line but I am a cynic. Definitely agree it is not a good look.

[Rain]

Interesting.  I got to thinking that the church has told us what the covenants are so I went looking for them.  At first, I found an archived page. If I understand right it is from Feb 2022.

Quote

In the endowment, members are invited to make sacred covenants to:

• Live the law of obedience and strive to keep Heavenly Father’s commandments.

• Obey the law of sacrifice, which means sacrificing to support the Lord’s work and repenting with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

• Obey the law of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the higher law that He taught while He was on the earth.

• Keep the law of chastity, which means that a member has sexual relations only with the person to whom he or she is legally and lawfully wedded according to God’s law.

• Keep the law of consecration, which means dedicating their time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed them to building up Jesus Christ’s Church on the earth.

 So I thought "I've never heard or read anything like this for initiatory so I went looking (first on that page). It says:

Quote

The endowment is received in two parts. In the first part, a person receives a preliminary ordinance called the initiatory.

  So the initiatory is part of the endowment.  

Quote

The initiatory is also known as the washing and anointing (see Exodus 29:4–9). It includes special blessings related to the person’s divine heritage and potential.

During the initiatory, the member is authorized to wear the temple garment. The garment represents his or her personal relationship with God and the commitment to obey covenants made in the temple. When members are faithful to their covenants and wear the garment properly throughout their lives, it also serves as a protection.

No mention of a covenant.  Now one could assume from the wording above that there might be a covenant there, but it is not presented as a covenant like it is in the second part of the endowment and as far as I can tell it has never been mentioned as a covenant when the other 5 have been listed.

But, if you go to what it says now:

Quote

The endowment is received in two parts. In the first part, a person receives preliminary ordinances called the initiatory. The initiatory comprises three ordinances: washing, anointing, and clothing (see Exodus 29:4–9). It includes special blessings related to the person’s divine heritage and potential.

During the initiatory, the member covenants to wear the temple garment. The garment represents his or her personal relationship with God and the commitment to obey covenants made in the temple. When members are faithful to their covenants and wear the garment properly throughout their lives, it also serves as a protection.

  You can see it is considered by church leaders as making a covenant.  Did the wording change in the initiatory too when it was changed in the endowment?

Interestingly, the wording of what is said about the 5 covenants has changed too:

Quote

1. Live the law of obedience and strive to keep Heavenly Father’s commandments.

2. Obey the law of sacrifice, which means sacrificing to support the Lord’s work and repenting with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

3. Obey the law of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which means:

   • Exercising faith in Jesus Christ.

   • Repenting daily.

   • Making covenants with God by receiving the ordinances of salvation and exaltation.

   • Enduring to the end by keeping covenants.

   • Striving to live the two great commandments. These are to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” and to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:37, 39).

4. Keep the law of chastity, which means abstaining from sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman, which is according to God’s law.

5. Keep the law of consecration, which means that members dedicate their time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed them to building up Jesus Christ’s Church on the earth.

 

The 1991-1995 Temple recommend question said:

Quote

12. If you have received your temple endowment — (a) Do you keep all the covenants that you made in the temple? (b) Do you wear the authorized garments both day and night?

That could go either way. Either that part is part of receiving endowments, but not necessarily considered a covenant or it could be a followup to part a as being one of those covenants, but that would be a little odd since it doesn't have follow-up parts C, D, etc for other covenants.

Over the years there have been variations in how the question is worded in the temple recommend interview. Some of them had words like "official" and "instructed".  I'm guessing the clear connection between covenant and garments came in 1996 as far as the recommend goes.

So from all this, I conclude that either they felt it wasn't clear to everyone that one was making a covenant to wear garments at some time before 2022 or that it wasn't considered a covenant until somewhat recently. 

 

 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Interesting.  I got to thinking that the church has told us what the covenants are so I went looking for them.  At first, I found an archived page. If I understand right it is from Feb 2022.

 So I thought "I've never heard or read anything like this for initiatory so I went looking (first on that page). It says:

  So the initiatory is part of the endowment.  

No mention of a covenant.  Now one could assume from the wording above that there might be a covenant there, but it is not presented as a covenant like it is in the second part of the endowment and as far as I can tell it has never been mentioned as a covenant when the other 5 have been listed.

But, if you go to what it says now:

  You can see it is considered by church leaders as making a covenant.  Did the wording change in the initiatory too when it was changed in the endowment?

Interestingly, the wording of what is said about the 5 covenants has changed too:

 

The 1991-1995 Temple recommend question said:

That could go either way. Either that part is part of receiving endowments, but not necessarily considered a covenant or it could be a followup to part a as being one of those covenants, but that would be a little odd since it doesn't have follow-up parts C, D, etc for other covenants.

Over the years there have been variations in how the question is worded in the temple recommend interview. Some of them had words like "official" and "instructed".  I'm guessing the clear connection between covenant and garments came in 1996 as far as the recommend goes.

So from all this, I conclude that either they felt it wasn't clear to everyone that one was making a covenant to wear garments at some time before 2022 or that it wasn't considered a covenant until somewhat recently. 

 

 

It kind of reminds me of the covenants we make at baptism, which are never stated explicitly in the ordinance, just implied. 

I would guess that they felt it wasn't clear to everyone that they were making a covenant to wear them (and maybe that's why members weren't wearing them as they believe they should be) and that's why they've clarified.

Edited March 31, 2024 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Interesting.  I got to thinking that the church has told us what the covenants are so I went looking for them.  At first, I found an archived page. If I understand right it is from Feb 2022.

 So I thought "I've never heard or read anything like this for initiatory so I went looking (first on that page). It says:

  So the initiatory is part of the endowment.  

No mention of a covenant.  Now one could assume from the wording above that there might be a covenant there, but it is not presented as a covenant like it is in the second part of the endowment and as far as I can tell it has never been mentioned as a covenant when the other 5 have been listed.

But, if you go to what it says now:

  You can see it is considered by church leaders as making a covenant.  Did the wording change in the initiatory too when it was changed in the endowment?

Interestingly, the wording of what is said about the 5 covenants has changed too:

 

The 1991-1995 Temple recommend question said:

That could go either way. Either that part is part of receiving endowments, but not necessarily considered a covenant or it could be a followup to part a as being one of those covenants, but that would be a little odd since it doesn't have follow-up parts C, D, etc for other covenants.

Over the years there have been variations in how the question is worded in the temple recommend interview. Some of them had words like "official" and "instructed".  I'm guessing the clear connection between covenant and garments came in 1996 as far as the recommend goes.

So from all this, I conclude that either they felt it wasn't clear to everyone that one was making a covenant to wear garments at some time before 2022 or that it wasn't considered a covenant until somewhat recently. 

 

 

Thanks for this research I think you've answered my question beautifully. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It kind of reminds me of the covenants we make at baptism, which are never stated explicitly in the ordinance, just implied. 

I would guess that they felt it wasn't clear to everyone that they were making a covenant to wear them (and maybe that's why members weren't wearing them as they believe they should be) and that's why they've clarified.

So this is a question I thought of: if you don't know you are making a covenant have you made one? My answer would be no or at least God wouldn't hold you to it, but I'm not so sure others would feel the same way.

If you find out later it was supposed to be a covenant is it retroactive? Meaning are those people now required to do so? What if they never go to the temple again because they didn't know this at the beginning? 

Edited March 31, 2024 by Rain

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

So this is a question I thought of: if you don't know you are making a covenant have you made one? My answer would be no or at least God wouldn't hold you to it, but I'm not so sure others would feel the same way.

If you find out later it was supposed to be a covenant is it retroactive? Meaning are those people now required to do so? What if they never go to the temple again because they didn't know this at the beginning? 

This goes back to why they are now being transparent about covenants. It never was a good idea to not let people know what they are promising to do before they have to say yes. They are now doing it all over again. All of my knowledge about garments came from what I was randomly told and temple recommend interviews that could be invasive depending on the man doing it (For many years I was expected to tell two men that I wore my bra over the garment because some Stake Prez decided that was appropriate.) 

 I never saw it as a covenant, just something I was supposed to do as an adjunct to covenants.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

This goes back to why they are now being transparent about covenants. It never was a good idea to not let people know what they are promising to do before they have to say yes. They are now doing it all over again. All of my knowledge about garments came from what I was randomly told and temple recommend interviews that could be invasive depending on the man doing it (For many years I was expected to tell two men that I wore my bra over the garment because some Stake Prez decided that was appropriate.) 

 I never saw it as a covenant, just something I was supposed to do as an adjunct to covenants.

Same here, didn't remember covenanting to wear them, but now we know, haha. Do remember the initiatory part and the talk on how to wear the garment top. I kind of like the bra over top of it, feel less sweaty and feels like a blanket or comforting as well.  Now if I were to not wear garments anymore, I would wear some other top like a tank top or something underneath. I still cannot get used to wearing regular underwear again, it's really strange somewhat like David Archuleta said in his Instagram post (?), he felt naked without his garments at first. 

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

This goes back to why they are now being transparent about covenants. It never was a good idea to not let people know what they are promising to do before they have to say yes. They are now doing it all over again. All of my knowledge about garments came from what I was randomly told and temple recommend interviews that could be invasive depending on the man doing it (For many years I was expected to tell two men that I wore my bra over the garment because some Stake Prez decided that was appropriate.) 

 I never saw it as a covenant, just something I was supposed to do as an adjunct to covenants.

According to my wife bras don't do what they are supposed to do when worn over garments, so she always wore it under.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

This goes back to why they are now being transparent about covenants. It never was a good idea to not let people know what they are promising to do before they have to say yes. They are now doing it all over again. All of my knowledge about garments came from what I was randomly told and temple recommend interviews that could be invasive depending on the man doing it (For many years I was expected to tell two men that I wore my bra over the garment because some Stake Prez decided that was appropriate.) 

 I never saw it as a covenant, just something I was supposed to do as an adjunct to covenants.

That is how I felt about it.  I mentioned above about what happy jack said. Even before that I never thought of it as a covenant, I just didn't really catch that part had been added till he said something. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

@smac97 recently took issue with Archelta’s lyric “you can’t choose.” Latter-day Saints like to say things like “teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves”, but the reality rarely plays out like that. 

[Rain]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Same here, didn't remember covenanting to wear them, but now we know, haha. Do remember the initiatory part and the talk on how to wear the garment top.

The thing with that is I have been in the instructions 4 times. Once for myself, once with my SIL, once with a good friend and the last with my daughter. In everyone one of those we were told something different about something. In none of them was a covenant about garments mentioned. 

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I kind of like the bra over top of it, feel less sweaty and feels like a blanket or comforting as well.  Now if I were to not wear garments anymore, I would wear some other top like a tank top or something underneath. I still cannot get used to wearing regular underwear again, it's really strange somewhat like David Archuleta said in his Instagram post (?), he felt naked without his garments at first. 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

According to my wife bras don't do what they are supposed to do when worn over garments, so she always wore it under.

I think that's a scenario almost all can get behind.

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

According to my wife bras don't do what they are supposed to do when worn over garments, so she always wore it under.

She is right about that, but so many of us were instructed to wear it over.

When I went through with my friend I had heard rumor that they had changed that rule, but the woman instructing did not mention how it should be done. I asked about it and the sister got pretty uncomfortable and said they don't tell people how to do it - one should work it out for themselves.

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think that's a scenario almost all can get behind.

You might be surprised how many would definitely not agree with it. I mean there are some pretty strong opinions about wearing it on top.

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

You might be surprised how many would definitely not agree with it. I mean there are some pretty strong opinions about wearing it on top.

As conservative as I am I can see the sense behind it. Imagine wearing tighty-whities over them for men.... No thanks!

Edited March 31, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

According to my wife bras don't do what they are supposed to do when worn over garments, so she always wore it under.

Unfortunately a lot of women weren’t given a choice and they were told they had to wear garments under their bra, next to their skin. Thankfully, I was not one of them, but from what I have heard, I am in a small minority for my time. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

You might be surprised how many would definitely not agree with it. I mean there are some pretty strong opinions about wearing it on top.

Yep, the idea being you have to wear it next to your skin. 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep, the idea being you have to wear it next to your skin. 

And along with this what women wear on bottom even while on their periods.

[Calm]

Just now, Rain said:

And along with this what women wear on bottom even while on their periods.

I wasn’t going to mention this, but yeah. The reasoning nothing should come between you and the garment doesn’t work. I have known of women who feel guilty that they are breaking some covenant when hygiene requires something else next to the skin to keep oneself and the garments clean.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Thank you for your perspectives. I can see how "next to your skin- where reasonable"- would be a good clarification.

[Raingirl]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wasn’t going to mention this, but yeah. The reasoning nothing should come between you and the garment doesn’t work. I have known of women who feel guilty that they are breaking some covenant when hygiene requires something else next to the skin to keep oneself and the garments clean.

When I received my endowment, I was specifically instructed that it was absolutely okay to wear my garments in addition to, not instead of, regular underwear. That the supposed instruction that the garment must be worn beneath the bra was not correct, and that it is perfectly acceptable to wear regular underwear beneath the garment bottom. This made sense to me, as I do not see the garment as underwear. Underwear and priesthood garments have entirely separate purposes, so it makes sense to not treat garments as underwear.  Indeed, to me, it seems disrespectful.  I cannot imagine expecting my garments to function as my underwear. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

can see how "next to your skin- where reasonable"- would be a good clarification.

No, given how many members try hard to do what’s right, specific details about what is allowed should be given imo if there are actual rules and if not, that should be made clear too.  I would hope they make specific instructions part of training for temple workers these days because you get people adding their own thing.

My experience with oddness was I was never to let my garments touch the ground.  That was impossible unless I laid down on my bed to get dressed for me as my balance has never been that great.  An older friend insisted we must never treat garments as laundry, if they were not on our bodies, they should always be carefully folded even if dirty, waiting to be washed.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

When I received my endowment, I was specifically instructed that it was absolutely okay to wear my garments in addition to, not instead of, regular underwear. That the supposed instruction that the garment must be worn beneath the bra was not correct, and that it is perfectly acceptable to wear regular underwear beneath the garment bottom. This made sense to me, as I do not see the garment as underwear. Underwear and priesthood garments have entirely separate purposes, so it makes sense to not treat garments as underwear.  Indeed, to me, it seems disrespectful.  I cannot imagine expecting my garments to function as my underwear. 

An additional layer all the time is not healthy for some people who tend to over heat like myself.

But if possible, I would definitely have preferred to look at garments in that way.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[Raingirl]

45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

According to my wife bras don't do what they are supposed to do when worn over garments, so she always wore it under.

Your wife is correct. You’ll never get a properly fitting and functioning bra this way. 
 I go into more detail in another post, but when I was endowed, the instruction that I received was that the teaching that you had to wear the garment under the bra was incorrect.  

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Your wife is correct. You’ll never get a properly fitting and functioning bra this way. 
 I go into more detail in another post, but when I was endowed, the instruction that I received was that the teaching that you had to wear the garment under the bra was incorrect.  

When did you go through? I went in 89. My SIL went around 20 years ago. My friend went around 16 years ago and my daughter about 3. It wasn't till my daughter that they freely gave that you could choose. So I wonder how much is timing and how much the personality of the person giving instruction.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Rain