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

[Calm]

Just to be clear, because I misread something yesterday….no one knows if there will actually be updated questions or what they will be?  There were also reports, but not quotes from Elder Hamilton’s talk at Elk Grove correct?

I need to always read articles through three times to make sure I get it (mostly) right.

Edited April 1, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

20 hours ago, Rain said:

[quoting from an archived LDS page about Temple covenants:]

• 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). [emphasis manol's]

 

The last time I went through the temple was in the late 90's and I don't remember the Two Great Commandments being specifically included, BUT it is entirely possible that I was not listening closely to that part.  If anyone is comfortable telling me, is this wording a relatively recent addition? 

[Ferdinand55]

I would argue that one makes an implicit covenant to wear the temple garment when getting endowed.

In a sense, it’s no different than when we get baptized. It’s not like we are asked while we’re standing in the water “Do you covenant to mourn with those that mourn? Stand as a witness of God? Etc, etc”. We enter into an agreement to do those things by participating in the ordinance of baptism.

The problem I see is that unlike baptism where the implicit covenants we enter into are well known and well taught before one even enters the waters, the implicit covenant of wearing the garment is not as well known and as well taught, especially for converts. 

If it was very clearly explained to people beforehand that when they are endowed, they are covenanting to wear the temple garment, there would probably be less confusion and contention regarding this matter.

Edited April 1, 2024 by Ferdinand55

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, Ferdinand55 said:

I would argue that one makes an implicit covenant to wear the temple garment when getting endowed.

In a sense, it’s no different than when we get baptized. It’s not like we are asked while we’re standing in the water “Do you covenant to mourn with those that mourn? Stand as a witness of God? Etc, etc”. We enter into an agreement to do those things by participating in the ordinance of baptism.

The problem I see is that unlike baptism where the implicit covenants we enter into are well known and well taught before one even enters the waters, the implicit covenant of wearing the garment is not as well known and as well taught, especially for converts. 

If it was very clearly explained to people beforehand that when they are endowed, they are covenanting to wear the temple garment, there would probably be less confusion and contention regarding this matter.

There is of course the temple preparedness classes where the member is taught all these things before going to the temple. How well things are explained depends on the instructor of the class. The General Handbook for example states:

"Members who receive the endowment make a covenant to wear the temple garment throughout their lives."
"It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment."

 

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There is of course the temple preparedness classes where the member is taught all these things before going to the temple. How well things are explained depends on the instructor of the class. The General Handbook for example states:

"Members who receive the endowment make a covenant to wear the temple garment throughout their lives."
"It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment."

 

I didn't have a class.  It wasn't even offered to me.   The things in the manuals have changed over the years just like the CHI has. For many years as far as I understand the manual or instructions really had little to do with the temple and more to do with understanding basic doctrine. Even just when my daughter, who was totally interested in learning more and read as much as she could, the manual was almost totally about the plan of salvation doctrine and not the temple.  She was very frustrated and was grateful that I was determined she would be more prepared than I was. 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Rain said:

I didn't have a class.  It wasn't even offered to me.   The things in the manuals have changed over the years just like the CHI has. For many years as far as I understand the manual or instructions really had little to do with the temple and more to do with understanding basic doctrine. Even just when my daughter, who was totally interested in learning more and read as much as she could, the manual was almost totally about the plan of salvation doctrine and not the temple.  She was very frustrated and was grateful that I was determined she would be more prepared than I was. 

I wasn't offered a class either.  I was endowed in the late 90s and those classes didn't seem to be a thing then, at least no in my area.

[BlueDreams]

22 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

 

I can't remember if i mentioned this here before, but on my instructions I got two different takes in the same instructions. I had an older lady and a younger lady giving them to me. The older was obviously more strict about what she did. The younger less so. So they would gently interject their differences at points. Which gave me an overall impression that there were many ways to be respectful with the garments and still be fine. I preferred the on display notion that there's many ways to live a principle of keeping the garment as a  sacred emblem of covenants.  (Which is how I've always seen them. I don't think I took them as separate from my covenants but markers of them and my own personal temple that I carried with me wherever I went). 

 

That said, this was prior to shifting about not telling people what to do with their bras. So I got used to wearing it on top and prefer it that way now  for several pragmatic reasons. It would keep my g's from peaking out, would sometimes act like a tank top with less fabric, particularly with maternity bras, and I don't have to clean/buy as many bras because they would last longer from less wear and tear. 

Of course post covid, I simply wear bras less. I don't see the point in them most days and don't enjoy being uncomfortable. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited April 1, 2024 by BlueDreams

[JAHS]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I didn't have a class.  It wasn't even offered to me.   The things in the manuals have changed over the years just like the CHI has. For many years as far as I understand the manual or instructions really had little to do with the temple and more to do with understanding basic doctrine. Even just when my daughter, who was totally interested in learning more and read as much as she could, the manual was almost totally about the plan of salvation doctrine and not the temple.  She was very frustrated and was grateful that I was determined she would be more prepared than I was. 

I wasn't offered a class either.  I was endowed in the late 90s and those classes didn't seem to be a thing then, at least no in my area.

Maybe everyone should attend a temple preparedness class to get the latest information. 
"Purpose
This course of instruction is designed to help members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prepare to receive temple recommends and attend the temple. Members who have previously attended the temple may also take the class to learn more about the temple."  

Information that was not in the manual in the 90s is there now. I think the first publication of the manual was 1995. 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/endowed-from-on-high/introduction?lang=eng

Edited April 1, 2024 by JAHS

[Rain]

25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Maybe everyone should attend a temple preparedness class to get the latest information. 
"Purpose
This course of instruction is designed to help members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prepare to receive temple recommends and attend the temple. Members who have previously attended the temple may also take the class to learn more about the temple."  

Information that was not in the manual in the 90s is there now. I think the first publication of the manual was 1995. 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/endowed-from-on-high/introduction?lang=eng

OK, I did a quick search and the best I can find about garments is this:

Quote

It reminds you of who you are and what your obligations and covenants are. It is a continual reminder that you are a member of the clergy, that you regard yourself as a servant of the Lord, and that you are responsible to live in such a way as to be worthy of your ordination.”

I'm not finding anything in the manual about garments being a covenant, but the church website is still difficult for me to navigate.  I'm actually not finding the quote you had from the handbook either, but I don't doubt you that it is there - it's just showing me that I'm not getting good results on my searching. So is there anything in the manual about them being a covenant rather than just a reminder?  

[bluebell]

Just now, Rain said:

OK, I did a quick search and the best I can find about garments is this:

I'm not finding anything in the manual about garments being a covenant, but the church website is still difficult for me to navigate.  I'm actually not finding the quote you had from the handbook either, but I don't doubt you that it is there - it's just showing me that I'm not getting good results on my searching. So is there anything in the manual about them being a covenant rather than just a reminder?  

There is a part of the endowment that gives more information on the symbology of the garment as well.  I can't remember if that has been shared outside of the temple so I don't want to say more until I know for certain.

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

OK, I did a quick search and the best I can find about garments is this:

I'm not finding anything in the manual about garments being a covenant, but the church website is still difficult for me to navigate.  I'm actually not finding the quote you had from the handbook either, but I don't doubt you that it is there - it's just showing me that I'm not getting good results on my searching. So is there anything in the manual about them being a covenant rather than just a reminder?  

This is what it says in Lesson 6 of the manual:
"Explain that those who have participated in the temple ceremony are privileged to wear the garment of the holy priesthood. In a statement to the Church, the First Presidency said:
“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …
“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. … When the garment must be removed, … it should be restored as soon as possible."

Here is the Church handbook reference to it.

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is a part of the endowment that gives more information on the symbology of the garment as well.  I can't remember if that has been shared outside of the temple so I don't want to say more until I know for certain.

Yes, that goes well with the reminder part.

[Rain]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This is what it says in Lesson 6 of the manual:
"Explain that those who have participated in the temple ceremony are privileged to wear the garment of the holy priesthood. In a statement to the Church, the First Presidency said:
“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …
“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. … When the garment must be removed, … it should be restored as soon as possible."

Here is the Church handbook reference to it.

Thank you. Good that it is there 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I wasn't offered a class either.  I was endowed in the late 90s and those classes didn't seem to be a thing then, at least no in my area.

Nor I, in '84.

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This is what it says in Lesson 6 of the manual:
"Explain that those who have participated in the temple ceremony are privileged to wear the garment of the holy priesthood. In a statement to the Church, the First Presidency said:
“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …
“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. … When the garment must be removed, … it should be restored as soon as possible."

Here is the Church handbook reference to it.

"The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing."

To me that is the key. Bras and underwear are not "outer" clothing.

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing."

To me that is the key. Bras and underwear are not "outer" clothing.

Right, like I said earlier, the CHI says: "It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment."

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes, that goes well with the reminder part.

It's something that has been added in the last couple of years (maybe it was last year, I can't remember).  I didn't think you had been since then but that's a misunderstanding on my part.

From my perspective, it's more than just a reminder.  It's an aspect of a previous covenant come to fulfillment.

[webbles]

The 2010 CHI said:

Quote

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment. The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. When properly worn, it provides protection against temptation and evil. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow
the Savior.

Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.

Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn.

The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect at all times. Garments should be kept off the floor. They should also be kept clean and mended. After garments are washed, they should not be hung in public areas to dry. Nor should they be displayed or exposed to the view of people who do not understand their significance.

It mentions it being a covenant.

The 2006 CHI said:

Quote

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple are obligated to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment. When issuing temple recommends, priesthood leaders should teach the importance of wearing the garment properly. Leaders also emphasize the blessings that are related to this sacred privilege. These blessings are conditioned on worthiness and faithfulness in keeping temple covenants.

No mention of covenant.  Instead it is an obligation.  Same with the 1998 CHI.

[Teancum]

On 3/30/2024 at 12:16 AM, 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.

Maybe this been posted, but the TR question on garments used to ask if you wear then day and night and as covenanted in the temple.  We always understood this to mean you were them always but for athletic events, swimming, bathing or showering and when physically intimate with a spouse.  Did that change somewhere along the way?

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying it won’t help?

What's "it"? 

What is this "it" supposed to help?

Sorry, do not understand.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

The 2010 CHI said:

It mentions it being a covenant.

The 2006 CHI said:

No mention of covenant.  Instead it is an obligation.  Same with the 1998 CHI.

A wording error later corrected.

Oh my!

Fallibility??  Not possible?  Come on folks!  

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, manol said:

The last time I went through the temple was in the late 90's and I don't remember the Two Great Commandments being specifically included, BUT it is entirely possible that I was not listening closely to that part.  If anyone is comfortable telling me, is this wording a relatively recent addition? 

A discussion ABOUT a topic is not necessarily a QUOTATION of statements found IN the topic.

We are discussing a topic here and no one has actually quoted any temple wording. 

So the answer in this case is "no".

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Maybe this been posted, but the TR question on garments used to ask if you wear then day and night and as covenanted in the temple.  We always understood this to mean you were them always but for athletic events, swimming, bathing or showering and when physically intimate with a spouse.  Did that change somewhere along the way?

No.

[Stargazer]

On 3/30/2024 at 4:51 AM, Rain said:

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.

 

I have never made an explicit covenant to keep the Word of Wisdom, but nevertheless I consider myself bound to it as if it were a covenant. The covenant is implied by accepting baptism. And just because the wearing of the garment as prescribed is not made under explicit covenant, it seems clear to me that there is an implicit covenant. I've been a temple ordinance worker, and have repeated the words of the clothing ordinance hundreds of times. It's entirely clear to me that the garments are to be worn as if there had been a covenant made to do so.

The difference between the garment and the WoW is that there doesn't seem to be a convenience exception to keeping it, whereas there is one for garments (certain athletic sports, swimming, bathing, and certain intimate activities). 

I don't get why this seems complicated to some people. Are we looking for a set of rules so we can feel self-justified as Pharisee-wannabes? Or are we perhaps looking for a comprehensive list of exceptions so we can avoid wearing them at every possible opportunity? 

Common sense is called for here. If someone offers to shoot me if I don't drink a beer with them, then I'll drink a beer (if the threat is credible). If I'm going in for cardiac surgery, I'll leave the garment off.

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Maybe this been posted, but the TR question on garments used to ask if you wear then day and night and as covenanted in the temple.  We always understood this to mean you were them always but for athletic events, swimming, bathing or showering and when physically intimate with a spouse.  Did that change somewhere along the way?

Ahh the hallowed “athletic events.”