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

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, why me said:

However who actually cares what a member is wearing these days. There are a lot of musts but are many members do all the musts? I think that many members are just trying to survive life these days.

I would say that until there are a people willing and striving to do all the musts to the best of their ability as opposed to finding excuses not to do them that we will never be prepared for the return of the Savior.

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Notably mentioned “they are not magic.” 

Nobody in authority ever taught they were magic.

The covenant states that wearing them faithfully will have a shield a protection to against the power of the destroyer until they have finished their work.

Protection from the destroyer so we can live to complete our missions isn't magical, it's divine.

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody in authority ever taught they were magic.

The covenant states that wearing them faithfully will have a shield a protection to against the power of the destroyer until they have finished their work.

Protection from the destroyer so we can live to complete our missions isn't magical, it's divine.

I’m glad it was stated clearly.  Pet peeve of mine. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Notably mentioned “they are not magic.” 

Wait, I thought they were trying to convince people to wear them. Why would they say this?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I would say that until there are a people willing and striving to do all the musts to the best of their ability as opposed to finding excuses not to do them that we will never be prepared for the return of the Savior.

Since the Savior will burn the wicked when he comes wouldn’t deliberately not being righteous enough put off the Second Coming and thus be an act of charity towards said wicked.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Since the Savior will burn the wicked when he comes wouldn’t deliberately not being righteous enough put off the Second Coming and thus be an act of charity towards said wicked.

You would condemn yourself if you deliberately stopped being righteous, and then you wouldn't be helping anyone and the earth woul be "utterly wasted".

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You would condemn yourself if you deliberately stopped being righteous, and then you wouldn't be helping anyone and the earth woul be "utterly wasted".

If I am going down I am taking the whole earth WITH ME!!!!!

*evil laugh*

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If I am going down I am taking the whole earth WITH ME!!!!!

*evil laugh*

🤘👹🤘

[JustAnAustralian]

Letter from CHQ today:

TR questions 13 and 14 updated to

Quote

13. (is question is omitted when interviewing a member who is not endowed.) Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

14. (is question is omitted when interviewing a member who is not endowed.) Do you honor your sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances? (Read the “Wearing the Temple Garment” statement, included below, to each member.)

Garment statement now reads

Quote

The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. When you put on your garment, you put on a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ. Wearing it is an outward expression of your inner commitment to follow Him. The garment is also a reminder of your temple covenants. You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible. As you keep your covenants, including the sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances, you will have greater access to the Savior’s mercy, protection, strength, and power.(Additionally, see General Handbook, 38.5.)

 

[MustardSeed]

No skirting that directive. 

[Teancum]

On 4/7/2024 at 1:55 PM, Peacefully said:

Called it. As soon as President Oaks started talking about missionary attire, I told my husband this would be about wearing garments. He doubled down on wearing them. 

Two conference talks on wearing garments. I don't ever recall such talks in conference.  And this is followed up by adjustments to the TR questions with additional direction about the garment question. Message I think is those who think you can pick and choose when and when not to wear garments should not do that. Pretty much you wear them all the time.  No setting then aside to wear a sleeveless shirt, tank top or shorts.  It will be interesting to see if there is a backlash to this harder line direction.

[Teancum]

On 4/7/2024 at 3:20 PM, CV75 said:

Is anyone being convinced by today's conference speakers (or their rebutters) to wear their garments less? More?

Not me. I don't wear them at all. ☺️

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Two conference talks on wearing garments. I don't ever recall such talks in conference.  And this is followed up by adjustments to the TR questions with additional direction about the garment question. Message I think is those who think you can pick and choose when and when not to wear garments should not do that. Pretty much you wear them all the time.  No setting then aside to wear a sleeveless shirt, tank top or shorts.  It will be interesting to see if there is a backlash to this harder line direction.

I think that is always been the requirement. Nothing is really changed regarding what has been expected of us- but Covid affected clothing choices significantly. IMO I think we are readjusting.. 

Edited April 13, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Teancum]

On 4/7/2024 at 4:50 PM, JLHPROF said:

I would say that until there are a people willing and striving to do all the musts to the best of their ability as opposed to finding excuses not to do them that we will never be prepared for the return of the Savior.

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

Edited April 13, 2024 by Teancum

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Letter from CHQ today:

TR questions 13 and 14 updated to

Garment statement now reads

 

I’m so glad they finally clarified things. It was a little contradictory in the handbook because sometimes the handbook would refer to garments as an obligation and other times as a covenant. It looks like they’re walking back the idea that we covenant to where the garment and really focusing on it being a part of, our other temple covenants and in obligation that comes when we make those. And that makes sense to me. 

And I cannot say enough how happy I am that they explain the purpose of the garment and that nowhere in that blurb do they connect wearing the garment with modesty.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Not having the honor of wearing garments for the last 20ish years, I eagerly anticipate the day when I will have the blessing and privilege of wearing them again. Hopefully late this year or early next year.

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I think that is always been the requirement. Nothing is really changed regarding what has been expected of us- but Covid affected clothing choices significantly. IMO I think we are readjusting.. 

It has. I always understood that when I was active. And as I have noted, if I recall correctly, when I was a bishop from 2003 to 2008 the question included asking if the garment was worn both day and night.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Two conference talks on wearing garments. I don't ever recall such talks in conference.  And this is followed up by adjustments to the TR questions with additional direction about the garment question. Message I think is those who think you can pick and choose when and when not to wear garments should not do that. Pretty much you wear them all the time.  No setting then aside to wear a sleeveless shirt, tank top or shorts.  It will be interesting to see if there is a backlash to this harder line direction.

Seconding what MS said. My first response when I read it was...wait, isn't that what the temple recommend already said? I don't feel really pressed to change my habits as is. I wear them most the time with a number of exceptions for activities that it doesn't make sense to wear them. And in those I'm usually wearing tanks and shorts. Heck, with garments I'm wearing shorts in the warmer seasons. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Seconding what MS said. My first response when I read it was...wait, isn't that what the temple recommend already said? I don't feel really pressed to change my habits as is. I wear them most the time with a number of exceptions for activities that it doesn't make sense to wear them. And in those I'm usually wearing tanks and shorts. Heck, with garments I'm wearing shorts in the warmer seasons. 

 

My friend and I were talking about the interview questions yesterday over text so I happen to have a copy of what it used to say:

"Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?"

So it looks like they went from one question saying everything to two separate questions.

The blurb that was supposed to be read the members at the end said this yesterday:

"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. If members have questions about wearing the garment, refer them to 38.5.5."

Compared to the new blurb:

"The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. When you put on your garment, you put on a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ. Wearing it is an outward expression of your inner commitment to follow Him. The garment is also a reminder of your temple covenants. You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible. As you keep your covenants, including the sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances, you will have greater access to the Savior’s mercy, protection, strength, and power.(Additionally, see General Handbook, 38.5.)"

With the new blurb it looks like they've done what has already been done in the temple and clarifying some of the symbolic meaning of things.  And they've taken out the part about members seeking guidance to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.  And then reiterated the exact blessings that come from wearing the garment as instructed.

Yesterday I looked at the link that it use to send people to with more questions and weirdly it said the exact same thing as the blurb they were already read, except one added paragraph that said:

"Members who receive the endowment make a covenant to wear the temple garment throughout their lives."

They haven't updated the online version of the handbook yet so I can't tell what they've changed in the "additionally, see" link, if anything, yet.

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It has. I always understood that when I was active. And as I have noted, if I recall correctly, when I was a bishop from 2003 to 2008 the question included asking if the garment was worn both day and night.

You do recall correctly. 
I also understand that there are a lot of things that I do “both day and night” which have reasonable exceptions.   It’s for us to work out with God, and for nobody else to criticize, judge, demand, and Dictate.

And I don’t think that your snide comments are particularly helpful here. Many of us are doing the best we can to navigate something that’s hard. And there are those of us who don’t struggle with the garment, actually love them. It helps them feel closer to God. I don’t think that that’s bad even if God, in your opinion does not exist. People loving God is generally a good thing IMO. When God loving people do wrong, that has nothing to do with God.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You do recall correctly. 
I also understand that there are a lot of things that I do “both day and night” which have reasonable exceptions.   It’s for us to work out with God, and for nobody else to criticize, judge, demand, and Dictate.

Ok.

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

And I don’t think that your snide comments are particularly helpful here.

I have a lot of emotions tied up in this topic actually so if I become snide about it well, I am not totally sorry. But I will leave my thought about garments and what I think that says about the organization the requires them off for now out of respect for you and others.

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

 

Many of us are doing the best we can to navigate something that’s hard. And there are those of us who don’t struggle with the garment, actually love them. It helps them feel closer to God. I don’t think that that’s bad even if God, in your opinion does not exist. People loving God is generally a good thing IMO. When God loving people do wrong, that has nothing to do with God.

I wish you the best with this.

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok.

I have a lot of emotions tied up in this topic actually so if I become snide about it well, I am not totally sorry. But I will leave my thought about garments and what I think that says about the organization the requires them off for now out of respect for you and others.

I wish you the best with this.

Thank you! 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I think that is always been the requirement. Nothing is really changed regarding what has been expected of us- but Covid affected clothing choices significantly. IMO I think we are readjusting.. 

I'm glad it was mentioned that there are exceptions for those that cannot wear them for health reasons. And do believe women should definitely consider that and not live with pain. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm glad it was mentioned that there are exceptions for those that cannot wear them for health reasons. And do believe women should definitely consider that and not live with pain. 

I wish that was also made more explicit in the questions of the recommend and the blurb.  Previously it seemed covered by this part to me:

Quote

Endowedmembers should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.

Now there is no sense of exception given health is not an activity.

Edited April 13, 2024 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm glad it was mentioned that there are exceptions for those that cannot wear them for health reasons. And do believe women should definitely consider that and not live with pain. 

This ought to be self-evident, I think.

The goal of a loving father is not to torture those who love him.