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

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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.

But this is you and some other people.  Me and some other people do find a covenant different than what we understand the WoW and garments to be.  

 

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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.

To you. And to others. But obviously it is not clear to a lot of people or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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). 

Yes, but there are medical exceptions for the WoW.  They just are not spelled out anywhere and seem to only come on a local level.

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't get why this seems complicated to some people.

 

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Are we looking for a set of rules so we can feel self-justified as Pharisee-wannabes?

Well, I'm not. 

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Or are we perhaps looking for a comprehensive list of exceptions so we can avoid wearing them at every possible opportunity? 

I'm not.

Why do you ask those questions?

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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.

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What's "it"? 

What is this "it" supposed to help?

Sorry, do not understand.

Having women design women’s undergarments since you seem to imply having men design men’s undergarments doesn’t help the fit.

[mfbukowski]

6 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.

One of the statements webbles quoted here is:

"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. "

End quote

Please read the words.

A "covenant obligation" is neither a covenant nor an obligation.  It is a covenant obligation:  THE COVENANT IS THE CAUSE OF THE OBLIGATION, AS ALL COVENANTS DO! 

You buy a car, and COVENANT to pay $ 500 per month to the lender. Those payments then become an obligation YOU HAVE CREATED, by the covenant

If it said it was an " obligation covenant" that would mean that the obligation CAUSES the covenant, that the obligation is fulfilled BY THE COVENANT. 

You bought the car for $500 per mo, but got behind and they are going to repo it. You have an obligation which causes you perhaps to re-negotiate to pay $ 400 per mo, which then becomes a new covenant.

Here, the OBLIGATION CREATES THE COVENANT, and might be called an "obligation covenant" because the obligation forces you to make the covenant.

"Fulfill or else, an eye for an eye" is OT stuff, Jesus taught agency and love.

I have never heard of Father enforcing alleged literal penalties on anyone, though some may have believed that.

Sorry for formatting errors.

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Having women design women’s undergarments since you seem to imply having men design men’s undergarments doesn’t help the fit.

Mi amiga, I never mentioned designing anything, much less blaming either sex for anything.

Even your description would indicate, IF it is true, that men designing for men and women for women still can't get it right, so there's no particular sex to "blame".

It would just be nice if we could have different companies or design groups to compete with each other, following the strength of free competition, as we would in a free market.

That, I think, could be done by whatever department does the design work.

BUT it seems they are doing their best, making changes.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

would just be nice if we could have different companies or design groups to compete with each other, following the strength of free competition, as we would in a free market.

That, I think, could be done by whatever department does the design work.

BUT it seems they are doing their best, making changes.

I think the competition is a great idea.

I am not sure about doing their best because it seems to me at least from the man who was in charge if reported accurately) they were not doing their best in terms of design because budget concerns were given higher priority (he kept saying when it was suggested they have more styles or keep more inventory around, make it easier to get custom orders that they didn’t have the budget for it).  Having limited styles to stay in budget is not doing their best, imo….at least whoever made that decision.  I don’t fault the designers under them for that.  I do fault them for not being better at finding out what is actually needed though.  When a woman’s personal experiences talking to other women provide them with the best information they have ever had in the decades of producing garments, then it is pretty obvious what surveys they give out are too limited…or at least they didn’t do much with past surveyed info.  People who make garments aren’t going to be great with doing surveys, but I am guessing the Church has a department for that so they just needed to come up with the right kind of questions.

https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-138-finding-your-voice-and-using-it-a-conversation-with-afton-southam-parker/
 

Edited April 2, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mi amiga, I never mentioned designing anything, much less blaming either sex for anything.

Even your description would indicate, IF it is true, that men designing for men and women for women still can't get it right, so there's no particular sex to "blame".

See below for your response to a comment Mustardseed made.  I don’t have a clue what you mean and was guessing with “my description”.

That wasn’t my description though, just my attempt at deciphering what you meant.  I believe women will get it right if designing for women because many women know how very important it is for women to have it fit correct and to use the right fabrics to avoid infections, rashes or other health issues and perhaps about staying clean and making it easy to be clean.  If men don’t have the same issues, it makes sense why some don't realize it is so important and why men’s garment aren’t great fitting either.

If you figure out what you meant in the below, left me know, lol.

  On 3/31/2024 at 4:50 PM,  MustardSeed said:

Perfect example of why it’s important that women are the ones to determine what kind of undergarment we should be wearing.

Mfb:  Trust me, men have the same types of problems.  Both have troubles with body-parts fitting the cup shapes provided. 😏

Edited April 2, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Quick (hopefully) question about the temple.

What instruction for wearing the garments and caring for them or any other type of instruction do men going through their endowments the first time get?  Just wondering if it tends to be as detailed for men as women.
 

Someone said something about being the only non missionary there when they were getting taught it.  Probably there are enough women going on missions now, but in the past the assumption was the women getting the instructions were all brides.

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the competition is a great idea.

I am not sure about doing their best because it seems to me at least from the man who was in charge if reported accurately) they were not doing their best in terms of design because budget concerns were given higher priority (he kept saying when it was suggested they have more styles or keep more inventory around, make it easier to get custom orders that they didn’t have the budget for it).

https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-138-finding-your-voice-and-using-it-a-conversation-with-afton-southam-parker/
 

In the 60-70 a fashion designer named Rosie Marie Reid was asked to be in charge of designing the women's garments:
"After leaving her company to other designers, Rose Marie was asked by President David O. McKay—through Belle Spafford, the general president of the Relief Society—to redesign the temple garments so women would feel more comfortable and beautiful while wearing them. "  

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In the 60-70 a fashion designer named Rosie Marie Reid was asked to be in charge of designing the women's garments:
"After leaving her company to other designers, Rose Marie was asked by President David O. McKay—through Belle Spafford, the general president of the Relief Society—to redesign the temple garments so women would feel more comfortable and beautiful while wearing them. "  

This was when it went to two pieces.  Which I stand up and applaud as I was so nervous about wearing one piece as it looked like it was so exposed and awkward (which it was the one time I tried it while pregnant…no thanks) and so much excess material 

If it wasn’t for my health issues, I wouldn’t have complaints about the garments beyond hated the lace and hate the elastic binding.  I don’t expect clothing to be comfortable though.  My body type has worked okay with them.  Except for what always happens with clothing, the front sliding up so I have to tug it back into place. Clothing is something I ignore to the best of my ability.  I don’t buy expensive clothing because I hate shopping and that would take time, so only a few of my clothes are great fitting.  I don’t buy form fitting.  It can feel suffocating.  I admit I have major body issues because I had a form that went perfect with being the tomboy I was (except for being on the little side so not great at sports) before puberty and after puberty I was so not.  I honestly have always felt an alien in my own body.  Health issues made it worse where it feels like my body is sabotaging me.

In the past I have gone to men’s clothing to get long enough sleeves and legs, fabric that isn’t flimsy, etc. so garment fitting enough for me is a very low bar, lol.

I am at the point where I am thinking maybe it’s worth the investment to get clothing I actually like.  I have had a few pieces in the past and it has made a big difference in how the day feels.

If the Seventy in charge of garments in 2019 was any sign, any designer helping out these days is highly restricted in their ability to make changes.

Edited April 2, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

through Belle Spafford, the general president of the Relief Society—to redesign the temple garments so women would feel more comfortable and beautiful while wearing them. "  

Well, I’ll be darned. I just learned Sunday that Bell Spafford was my dad’s great aunt. Apparently the desire for change runs in the family lol.

[sunstoned]

On 3/30/2024 at 3:27 PM, 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. 

It is insulting. It is also insulting that the garment issue seems to be framed around women.  Are there no issues with men wearing garments?  I think there is.   From my vantage point, the church leadership seems to be heading in the wrong direction.  The fallout from Sister Dennis' talk should have been a big wake-up call.  I hope someone was listening.

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

But this is you and some other people.  Me and some other people do find a covenant different than what we understand the WoW and garments to be.  

I believe you have that privilege.

One of the things about garments that make me ponder the significance of temple clothing is the directions we're given pertaining to endowed members who pass away. Even if they are to be cremated, we are to dress them in temple clothing. Even if circumstances make it so they cannot be so dressed, the clothing is nevertheless supposed to be laid next to their remains. It is clearly symbolic, and symbolism is at the heart of everything connected with the temple. It's the reason we wear temple garments, as evidence of our commitment to the covenants we make in the temple. So I ponder the question of how is the evidence of that covenant not a covenant in itself?

12 hours ago, Rain said:

To you. And to others. But obviously it is not clear to a lot of people or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes, I have my opinion. And I've expressed it here. I'm not trying to shut the discussion down; let's have more of it!  But will the discussion lead to any kind of resolution? Perhaps it doesn't need to.

The church handbook has this to say:

26.3.3.2

Wearing the Temple Garment

"The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.

"It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ."

I added italics to the last sentence of the first paragraph because it clearly establishes that there is "wiggle room" in the matter. You may wiggle differently from me, but in the end, it is the Holy Spirit that has the last word.

There are special circumstances involved in various kinds of service that an endowed member might be engaged in, where wearing the garment may not always be wise or even allowed, in some circumstances. There's a section of the Handbook that goes over such circumstances. It says:

"Sometimes service regulations prevent a member from wearing the garment. In these cases, the member’s religious status is not affected as long as he or she remains worthy. The member will still receive the blessings associated with wearing the garment. If members are unable to wear the garment, they should wear it again as soon as circumstances allow."

Clearly, the wearing of the garment is not a "Principle of Iron."

12 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes, but there are medical exceptions for the WoW.  They just are not spelled out anywhere and seem to only come on a local level.

I'm not denying there are medical exceptions for the WoW. One may notice that the word "wisdom" occurs in the title of the covenant. It isn't called the "Word of Iron." If it were the WoI, every TBM who has ever added vanilla extract to a cake recipe would have to stand before a membership council to answer charges. 

Some people use beer, wine, or spirits in cooking, as a flavoring agent. If they are LDS are they breaking the WoW? I doubt it. Maybe they are if they're trying to get a buzz. 

12 hours ago, Rain said:

Well, I'm not. 

I'm not.

As you point out, others may have different objectives or outlooks. I truly believe there may be some few members of the church who would simply love to have precise rules laid out to follow -- for their own personal comfort, as it were, and for the many opportunities it would give them to hold those rules over the heads of others. As D&C 121:39 points out:

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

12 hours ago, Rain said:

Why do you ask those questions?

They are rhetorical, trying to make a point. If you missed my point, I'm not surprised, since most of my attempts at subtlety fall flat on their faces, and this is probably one of those attempts. I apologize!

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I believe you have that privilege.

One of the things about garments that make me ponder the significance of temple clothing is the directions we're given pertaining to endowed members who pass away. Even if they are to be cremated, we are to dress them in temple clothing. Even if circumstances make it so they cannot be so dressed, the clothing is nevertheless supposed to be laid next to their remains. It is clearly symbolic, and symbolism is at the heart of everything connected with the temple. It's the reason we wear temple garments, as evidence of our commitment to the covenants we make in the temple. So I ponder the question of how is the evidence of that covenant not a covenant in itself?

Yes, I have my opinion. And I've expressed it here. I'm not trying to shut the discussion down; let's have more of it!  But will the discussion lead to any kind of resolution? Perhaps it doesn't need to.

The church handbook has this to say:

26.3.3.2

Wearing the Temple Garment

"The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.

"It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ."

I added italics to the last sentence of the first paragraph because it clearly establishes that there is "wiggle room" in the matter. You may wiggle differently from me, but in the end, it is the Holy Spirit that has the last word.

There are special circumstances involved in various kinds of service that an endowed member might be engaged in, where wearing the garment may not always be wise or even allowed, in some circumstances. There's a section of the Handbook that goes over such circumstances. It says:

"Sometimes service regulations prevent a member from wearing the garment. In these cases, the member’s religious status is not affected as long as he or she remains worthy. The member will still receive the blessings associated with wearing the garment. If members are unable to wear the garment, they should wear it again as soon as circumstances allow."

I'm well aware of what it says now, but like I posted above it has all been changed a number of times where that wasn't clear in manuals or in the CHI. I understand how many see it as a covenant and I can see how with the changes the leaders of the church either saw it as a covenant or came to see it as one. But just because it is in the current handbook didn't mean you will get it a such before you go. I appreciate that if the church considers it a covenant that they are being more clear about it now.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Clearly, the wearing of the garment is not a "Principle of Iron."

I'm not denying there are medical exceptions for the WoW. One may notice that the word "wisdom" occurs in the title of the covenant. It isn't called the "Word of Iron." If it were the WoI, every TBM who has ever added vanilla extract to a cake recipe would have to stand before a membership council to answer charges. 

Some people use beer, wine, or spirits in cooking, as a flavoring agent. If they are LDS are they breaking the WoW? I doubt it. Maybe they are if they're trying to get a buzz. 

As you point out, others may have different objectives or outlooks. I truly believe there may be some few members of the church who would simply love to have precise rules laid out to follow -- for their own personal comfort, as it were, and for the many opportunities it would give them to hold those rules over the heads of others. As D&C 121:39 points out:

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

They are rhetorical, trying to make a point. If you missed my point, I'm not surprised, since most of my attempts at subtlety fall flat on their faces, and this is probably one of those attempts. I apologize!

 

I felt they were rhetorical, but didn't want to jump to the conclusion there was judgment there so I asked. I wanted to know if you were making the points that people were that way or if you were wanting people to ask themselves if they were that way or if you truly wanted to know. I wanted to know where your heart was on those questions because I felt judged and I didn't want to assume you were judging.

[Teancum]

On 3/31/2024 at 12:28 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

Ah but there are so many more choices these days. Me I love my Tommy Johns. Very comfy.😁

[Teancum]

So while I no longer wear garments, nor does my wife, I have been surprised  that there was even really a question about this. And I was surprised that it seems more in vogue to set them aside for clothing or comfort.  I had always thought we were to wear then at all times but for things like sports, physical intimacy and so on. My wife and I always wore them. Both of our clothing reflected that.  Even working outside in the NY hot humid summer.  For many years I never wore shorts.  Then when I did they were long enough to cover my garments. I had some male friends that wore garments with shorts but at  times their garments would show a bit. That alway bugged me.  It seems that it is still expected to wear garments pretty much all the time.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I felt they were rhetorical, but didn't want to jump to the conclusion there was judgment there so I asked. I wanted to know if you were making the points that people were that way or if you were wanting people to ask themselves if they were that way or if you truly wanted to know. I wanted to know where your heart was on those questions because I felt judged and I didn't want to assume you were judging.

Fair enough. I apologize for not making it clear! 

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Even if they are to be cremated, we are to dress them in temple clothing.

Fyi to this, I just saw they have completely biodegradable all cotton white (so bleached still) slippers now.  They do not look like they could be walked in for very long and there was a note about them being appropriate for cremation, so I thought that was great.

Now they need to get the rest of temple clothing fully biodegradable environmentally friendly.  All that polyester burning is not good.  I have always imagined I would be cremated, I was not thinking it through.

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So while I no longer wear garments, nor does my wife, I have been surprised  that there was even really a question about this. And I was surprised that it seems more in vogue to set them aside for clothing or comfort.  I had always thought we were to wear then at all times but for things like sports, physical intimacy and so on. My wife and I always wore them. Both of our clothing reflected that.  Even working outside in the NY hot humid summer.  For many years I never wore shorts.  Then when I did they were long enough to cover my garments. I had some male friends that wore garments with shorts but at  times their garments would show a bit. That alway bugged me.  It seems that it is still expected to wear garments pretty much all the time.

From what I've gleaned from reading elsewhere, I guess the question on the TR interview discontinued asking if the member wore them day and night, but maybe that is being put back in. I am not too savvy on this bit of information so it could be false. 

In my lived experience, and Facebook, I have seen youth that I know have been through the temple and some of their outfits seem like something I'd never been able to wear while wearing garments. So I believe some youth wear them only when they want to, but this perhaps will change that.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

. I had some male friends that wore garments with shorts but at  times their garments would show a bit. That alway bugged me. 

It was always weird to me that it was no issue to see the top of the men’s garment and so many men are casual about being able to see the garment bottoms with shorts and yet women had to hide every last glimpse of them.  Even seeing them in the underarm of a capped sleeved top was a big no, no.

But that parallels the different standards of exposure for men and women generally speaking.  Boys letting their underwear show was sloppy and lazy for my grandparents.  Girls wearing a bra on the outside was risqué, might as well be a stripper even if there was little skin exposure of the torso.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

guess the question on the TR interview discontinued asking if the member wore them day and night, but maybe that is being put back in. I am not too savvy on this bit of information so it could be false. 

As far as I can tell it’s speculation.  Let’s wait at least till conference before labeling true or false.   
 

Though sometimes things get announced on Friday iirc.

Edited April 2, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Fyi to this, I just saw they have completely biodegradable all cotton white (so bleached still) slippers now.  They do not look like they could be walked in for very long and there was a note about them being appropriate for cremation, so I thought that was great.

Now they need to get the rest of temple clothing fully biodegradable environmentally friendly.  All that polyester burning is not good.  I have always imagined I would be cremated, I was not thinking it through.

I think the biodegradable ones are for burials in the ground without all the preservatives and with biodegradable coffins. I could be wrong.

As for me, I plan on surviving into the Millennium, to be "twinkled" at some point. So no need for burial.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

could be wrong.

It did say burial. How funny.  My brain substituted cremation since that is my current likelihood. But by the time I am dead maybe biodegradable burial will be an easier option (I don’t want to make it hard for my kids).

Quote

As for me, I plan on surviving into the Millennium, to be "twinkled" at some point. So no need for burial.

Oh my gosh…living a long life has little appeal to me unless medical discoveries speed up.

Edited April 2, 2024 by Calm

[Raingirl]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

From what I've gleaned from reading elsewhere, I guess the question on the TR interview discontinued asking if the member wore them day and night, but maybe that is being put back in. I am not too savvy on this bit of information so it could be false. 

In my lived experience, and Facebook, I have seen youth that I know have been through the temple and some of their outfits seem like something I'd never been able to wear while wearing garments. So I believe some youth wear them only when they want to, but this perhaps will change that.  

It’s not just the youth. I’ve seen plenty of middle aged women wearing outfits where it’s obvious they aren’t wearing their garments. Lots of strapless dresses, tube tops, etc.  

Edited April 3, 2024 by Raingirl

[mfbukowski]

On 4/1/2024 at 4:38 PM, MustardSeed said:

Ahh the hallowed “athletic events.” 

So we should run around in a basketball uniform with garments on?

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So we should run around in a basketball uniform with garments on?

Well, are young women allowed to wear sleeveless shirts playing volleyball? Being sincere, out of the loop.

Edited April 3, 2024 by Tacenda