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

[2BizE]

There is not a specific covenant to wear garments. In the temple, one is instructed to wear the garment, “ this you are instructed to wear throughout your life.”  It does not say you are to wear the garment day and night throughout your life as the new temple recommend question suggests…just sharing the facts.

 

[bluebell]

Just now, 2BizE said:

There is not a specific covenant to wear garments. In the temple, one is instructed to wear the garment, “ this you are instructed to wear throughout your life.”  It does not say you are to wear the garment day and night throughout your life as the new temple recommend question suggests…just sharing the facts.

 

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

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This ought to be self-evident, I think.

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

 

But many, many women have endured the pain either from UTI's, or other infections or also from rashes or also the mental part of wearing them, feeling uncomfortable in them or constantly fighting how they fit with even the modest of all clothing. Still wearing mine, so use to it I guess. But the message hasn't been clear on if these women can go w/o wearing them so much. 

[Mystery Meat]

10 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s for us to work out with God, and for nobody else to criticize, judge, demand, and Dictate.

I shouldn't butt in, but I think there is a small but important quibble to be made with this statement. It is call the Garment of the Holy Priesthood. It is authorized for wearing in connection with ordinances made and covenants entered into in the Holy Temple. These ordinances and covenants are administered under the direction of priesthood keys (those of the temple president). Men with priesthood keys at the ward and stake level have been tasked with administering interviews to determine worthiness to enter the temple. Bishops, for example, are literally called "judges in Israel." They have authority (by virtue of their calling and the keys they hold) to judge if a person's wearing of the temple garment is in line with the instructions provided in the temple. This authority should not be abused. 

A story was shared on this board a few days back. I forget by who, about young girl wearing her mother's wedding dress in the temple and that the dress did not allow for the wearing of garments. As the story goes, when the temple president approached her and asked where her garments were, she told him off saying it was nobody's business but the Lord's how and when she wore the garment. I think that is at best half true. If she was saying "I will ultimately be judged by god how I wear the garment," then she was right. But that is only half of it and to miss the other half of it causes the first statement to be fatally misleading by omission. And the second half of the statement that is missing relates to what I have written above. The Lord has placed gatekeepers, as much as we may not like it or as uncomfortable as it is from time to time, to determine worthiness. So while we will absolutely ultimately be judged by God for our treatment of the garment, it is not just between God and us. And the changes to the questions make that clear. Some leaders have authority and even a responsibility to determine worthiness and that includes how and when the garment is worn. Perhaps more succinctly said, while how we wear the garment is "between us and the Lord," our worthiness to enter the temple, which includes wearing the garment as instructed in the temple, is between each member, the Lord AND local priesthood leaders holding or acting under priesthood keys. 

EDITED TO ADD:

I hold keys for no one on this matter and my post above should not be interpreted as condemnation/judgement regarding how or when anyone wears the garment.

Edited April 14, 2024 by Mystery Meat

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I shouldn't but in, but I think there is a small but important quibble to be made with this statement. It is call the Garment of the Holy Priesthood. It is authorized for wearing in connection with ordinances made and covenants entered into in the Holy Temple. These ordinances and covenants are administered under the direction of priesthood keys (those of the temple president). Men with priesthood keys at the ward and stake level have been tasked with administering interviews to determine worthiness to enter the temple. Bishops, for example, are literally called "judges in Israel." They have authority (by virtue of their calling and the keys they hold) to judge if a person's wearing of the temple garment is in line with the instructions provided in the temple. This authority should not be abused. 

A story was shared on this board a few days back. I forget by who, about young girl wearing her mother's wedding dress in the temple and that the dress did not allow for the wearing of garments. As the story goes, when the temple president approached her and asked where her garments were, she told him off saying it was nobody's business but the Lord's how and when she wore the garment. I think that is at best half true. If she was saying "I will ultimately be judged by god how I wear the garment," then she was right. But that is only half of it and to miss the other half of it causes the first statement to be fatally misleading by omission. And the second half of the statement that is missing relates to what I have written above. The Lord has placed gatekeepers, as much as we may not like it or as uncomfortable as it is from time to time, to determine worthiness. So while we will absolutely ultimately be judged by God for our treatment of the garment, it is not just between God and us. And the changes to the questions make that clear. Some leaders have authority and even a responsibility to determine worthiness and that includes how and when the garment is worn. Perhaps more succinctly said, while how we wear the garment is "between us and the Lord," our worthiness to enter the temple, which includes wearing the garment as instructed in the temple, is between each member, the Lord AND local priesthood leaders holding or acting under priesthood keys. 

Funny how it always ends up with men being in charge of judging women. 🤔

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Funny how it always ends up with men being in charge of judging women. 🤔

I didn't set up the system, but I do believe God did. There are certainly a lot of things about the church that butts up against the norms of 2024. I imagine that will only increase.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Funny how it always ends up with men being in charge of judging women. 🤔

It is unfortunate that garments are by necessity due to their construction substituted for underwear.  This is where most of the issues arise imo, both in men not understanding women’s underwear requirements and women’s significant discomfort of a man who is no relation to her not only commenting on her underwear, but often telling her what she can and can’t wear and how to wear them.  In any almost any other context that man would be considered violating privacy and would be judged quite immoral (I say almost because I imagine fashion designers, male or female, need to dictate the undergarments in order for their clothes to display as they want as well as some doctors might be instructing patients post surgeries and coaches might make suggestions on what works best for uniforms as my gymnastics coach did for me and my class, though being female there wasn’t anything creepy about it).

However, other options I can think of end up reducing to the same issues as long as the garment is not an outer piece of clothing.

Edited April 14, 2024 by Calm

[Raingirl]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is unfortunate that garments are by necessity due to their construction substituted for underwear.  This is where most of the issues arise imo, both in men not understanding women’s underwear requirements and women’s significant discomfort of a man who is no relation to her not only commenting on her underwear, but often telling her what she can and can’t wear and how to wear them.  In any almost any other context that man would be considered violating privacy and would be judged quite immoral (I say almost because I imagine fashion designers, male or female, need to dictate the undergarments in order for their clothes to display as they want as well as some doctors might be instructing patients post surgeries and coaches might make suggestions on what works best for uniforms as my gymnastics coach did for me and my class, though being female there wasn’t anything creepy about it).

However, other options I can think of end up reducing to the same issues as long as the garment is not an outer piece of clothing.

Garments do not have to be substituted for underwear. That is a choice made by some individuals. It is perfectly acceptable to wear your garments over your underwear, thus allowing underwear to serve as underwear, and garments to serve as garments.  I personally cannot imagine wearing my garments as underwear. Wearing my garment top over my bra is similar to wearing a chemise. A lot of women wear a thin pair of shorts overt their underwear, under a skirt, to prevent leg chafing. Different articles of clothing provide different functions. I have never understood using garments as underwear. Especially for women. Garments and underwear have completely different functions. 

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Garments do not have to be substituted for underwear. That is a choice made by some individuals. It is perfectly acceptable to wear your garments over your underwear, thus allowing underwear to serve as underwear, and garments to serve as garments.  I personally cannot imagine wearing my garments as underwear. Wearing my garment top over my bra is similar to wearing a chemise. A lot of women wear a thin pair of shorts overt their underwear, under a skirt, to prevent leg chafing. Different articles of clothing provide different functions. I have never understood using garments as underwear. Especially for women. Garments and underwear have completely different functions. 

You must not have been instructed to keep your garments next to your skin as much as possible.  I wish this was made clear as an option rather than instructions teaching we wear them instead of our former underwear as I was taught (though luckily I was taught I could wear the bra underneath so for me too, the upper garment is more like a chemise than underwear).  But at least in the US and Canada it has been rare that I have heard of a woman having the same experience as me up till not that long ago.

I am also trying to remember how it worked for my mother and as far as I can figure out, I don’t see how you could wear panties under the garment when it was one piece as it was up until late 1970s.  (I got married in 1980, so I knew lots who were still wearing them, even young women who liked the absence of elastics, though mainly I heard one piece for maternity, but I never asked about the mechanics.)  Those of us brought up in the Church would typically wear them like we saw our parents wear them.

Edited April 14, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Garments do not have to be substituted for underwear. That is a choice made by some individuals. It is perfectly acceptable to wear your garments over your underwear, thus allowing underwear to serve as underwear, and garments to serve as garments.  I personally cannot imagine wearing my garments as underwear. Wearing my garment top over my bra is similar to wearing a chemise. A lot of women wear a thin pair of shorts overt their underwear, under a skirt, to prevent leg chafing. Different articles of clothing provide different functions. I have never understood using garments as underwear. Especially for women. Garments and underwear have completely different functions. 

I have never known anyone, men nor women who wore underwear under their garments except for women on their periods and even that has been a relatively new thing for many. It was clearly taught to me that garments no underneath everything unless needed for periods and then a pad was ok. This is how it was with all my family, all my roommates who were endowed and my 10 missionary companions. It wasn't until about 15 years ago that I heard underwear was ok while on your period.

And men have their own problems with underwear so if women should wear underwear and garments, men should too.

I think growing up in the church, especially the older you are the more likely you will have been taught to wear it as underwear.

[MustardSeed]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

I think

Definitely my experience. 
 

I even read a news article (I’ll see if I can go find it again) -referring to the general conference talks - which explained that the bra is worn under the garment top. I have never in my life heard of a man wearing underwear underneath his garments.
 

That being said, there is no directive *presently*saying that women cannot wear undergarments underneath their temple garments.  
 

I would admit I have a significant resentment that we were ever instructed otherwise. 

[MustardSeed]

Sorry, this is a super dumb reference, but due to the fact that I mentioned it in my previous post I figured I’d better include it.  * I am not indicating that this source is an authority or a valid source of accurate news. It obviously is not. I don’t even know what Axios is, I do not live in Utah. 

The point of the reference was to indicate that it’s fairly common to *have to* see garments as underwear (though I really wish we didn’t) - it was set up that way in the initial instructions.  
 

The article,  by the way, is incorrect. 

[webbles]

56 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I even read a news article (I’ll see if I can go find it again) -referring to the general conference talks - which explained that the bra is worn under the garment top. I have never in my life heard of a man wearing underwear underneath his garments.

I've worn underwear under my garments when I did martial arts.

[Raingirl]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

I have never known anyone, men nor women who wore underwear under their garments except for women on their periods and even that has been a relatively new thing for many. It was clearly taught to me that garments no underneath everything unless needed for periods and then a pad was ok. This is how it was with all my family, all my roommates who were endowed and my 10 missionary companions. It wasn't until about 15 years ago that I heard underwear was ok while on your period.

And men have their own problems with underwear so if women should wear underwear and garments, men should too.

I think growing up in the church, especially the older you are the more likely you will have been taught to wear it as underwear.

Wearing underwear and garments together has been going on for quite some time. Just because you haven’t experienced it, or are against it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Definitely my experience. 
 

I even read a news article (I’ll see if I can go find it again) -referring to the general conference talks - which explained that the bra is worn under the garment top. I have never in my life heard of a man wearing underwear underneath his garments.
 

That being said, there is no directive *presently*saying that women cannot wear undergarments underneath their temple garments.  
 

I would admit I have a significant resentment that we were ever instructed otherwise. 

I'm changed forever in that I need my garment top under the bra. And if I were to quit wearing garments I would buy a tank top or sheer camisole because I feel sooo uncomfortable with the bra on the skin for some odd reason. 

 

 

[Raingirl]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

You must not have been instructed to keep your garments next to your skin as much as possible.  I wish this was made clear as an option rather than instructions teaching we wear them instead of our former underwear as I was taught (though luckily I was taught I could wear the bra underneath so for me too, the upper garment is more like a chemise than underwear).  But at least in the US and Canada it has been rare that I have heard of a woman having the same experience as me up till not that long ago.

I am also trying to remember how it worked for my mother and as far as I can figure out, I don’t see how you could wear panties under the garment when it was one piece as it was up until late 1970s.  (I got married in 1980, so I knew lots who were still wearing them, even young women who liked the absence of elastics, though mainly I heard one piece for maternity, but I never asked about the mechanics.)  Those of us brought up in the Church would typically wear them like we saw our parents wear them.

Why does “next to the skin, as much as possible” have to translate to forbidding wearing underwear beneath your garments? Even with wearing underwear beneath your garments, the majority of the garment is still directly touching skin.   I’d say that’s as much as possible. 
 

It always amazes me how judgmental women are about how other women wear their garments.  Do the same women zealously clinging to the garments-have-to-be-underwear trope go around policing non church members underwear? If garments are just underwear, why not?

You would think women would appreciate this option, instead, some seem downright angry (and definitely judgemental) that other women are wearing their garments this way. Do these same women get upset about the six foot tall women who brag to me that they buy the petite garments so they can wear mini skirts and shorts, so they’re still “good”?

Not only should men stop dictating and policing garment wearing, so should women. 
 

I can only imagine how many heads would explode if I talked about how women should actually go commando at night.  Studies have shown that this reduces the number of yeast infections, and other issues. Gynecologists regularly make this recommendation. 
 

Nobody seems to bat an eye when a woman wants to skip her garments to wear short shorts or a strapless dress, but foregoing garments at night for health reasons, would probably induce a stroke in more than a few. 

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Wearing underwear and garments together has been going on for quite some time. Just because you haven’t experienced it, or are against it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

I am aware of that and can understand the idea.  You said "I have never understood using garments as underwear. " I explained why it is very common for most members (at least in the US where my experience with garments is) to understand them as underwear. 

My total guess is that unless you count women on their periods, men playing sports as Webbles mentioned and people with medical concerns that 99% of people are not wearing bottom underwear under their garments as and everyday thing. Wearing bras underneath will be a much higher occurrence and like I said that is "relatively" new for any, but a few like calm. And I've never said I was against it and have taught those I was preparing to go through the temple it was a choice.

Edited April 14, 2024 by Rain

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Why does “next to the skin, as much as possible” have to translate to forbidding wearing underwear beneath your garments?

 

20 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Even with wearing underwear beneath your garments, the majority of the garment is still directly touching skin.   I’d say that’s as much as possible. 
 

It always amazes me how judgmental women are about how other women wear their garments.  

Have you read any of us on this thread doing that? If you have then we are seriously miscommunicating with you. Our experience with how we, personally, have been instructed does not mean we are judgemental of how others wear them. It is meerly showing our experience. And that is not to say our experience is better than yours   it is to show why we understand them as such and why some of us have been frustrated with men instructing us.

20 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Do the same women zealously clinging to the garments-have-to-be-underwear trope go around policing non church members underwear? If garments are just underwear, why not?

You would think women would appreciate this option, instead, some seem downright angry (and definitely judgemental) that other women are wearing their garments this way. Do these same women get upset about the six foot tall women who brag to me that they buy the petite garments so they can wear mini skirts and shorts, so they’re still “good”?

Not only should men stop dictating and policing garment wearing, so should women. 
 

I can only imagine how many heads would explode if I talked about how women should actually go commando at night.  Studies have shown that this reduces the number of yeast infections, and other issues. Gynecologists regularly make this recommendation. 
 

Nobody seems to bat an eye when a woman wants to skip her garments to wear short shorts or a strapless dress, but foregoing garments at night for health reasons, would probably induce a stroke in more than a few. 

Tons of people bat an eye for taking them off to go strapless. The way I read the majority of women, if not all, on this board is that you shouldn't police women whether it is health or other reasons, but that as individuals we should recognize what garments are, treat them so and work it out with the Lord how to wear them.  

Edited April 14, 2024 by Rain

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

It always amazes me how judgmental women are about how other women wear their garments.

I am sorry this is how it came across to you, I poorly expressed what I meant when I said “you must not have been instructed” as I meant “good for you! your instructor was careful to not do the unwritten rule approach” and definitely not “you were instructed the wrong way”.  Going back and rereading that part I can see how that came across the wrong way. 

I am actually envious that was your experience though I don’t know if I could make it work for me.  I was planning on trying it though now you have brought it up (just got to get the right one to try  ).  Honestly it just never occurred to me that would be acceptable (not saying I was judging others who were doing it, saying I never thought about it at all) except for hygiene reasons.

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. 

I hope it has changed and now you have mentioned it here and it’s now part of my paradigm, I will be sharing the idea with other women when it comes up.

Quote

Nobody seems to bat an eye when a woman wants to skip her garments to wear short shorts or a strapless dress, but foregoing garments at night for health reasons, would probably induce a stroke in more than a few

I actually did practically have a stroke though I tried not to show it so she wouldn’t feel judged when a young relative told me she doesn’t wear them with leggings as she is quite conservative in other ways (nor did I tell her she was wrong but said if that was the way she was inspired to wear them as she saw leggings as athletic wear, great).  I would have sworn before than she was the type who would be wearing them even for sports if comfortable enough. Shows how out of touch I am with youth and young adults these days, lol. And why some leaders are concerned, I am thinking.  I am likely going to be asking her if she has been inspired to do anything differently and what her friends do next time she visits, if she knows what the attitudes are now after the changes to the recommend, etc. 

Quote

I can only imagine how many heads would explode if I talked about how women should actually go commando at night.

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.  😛 

Edited April 14, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I've been reading on the history of garments because I don't believe it's a commandment from God but a symbol in making covenants in the temple and it has been said that Joseph Smith used Freemasonry as a vehicle for members to covenant or promise things in order to get back to God and that would include wearing the garment with the markings like symbols used in Freemasonry. https://www.ldsliving.com/latter-day-saints-and-masons-5-fascinating-connections/s/80329 

And this about the markings Freemasons had on a garment but only worn during the ceremony I believe. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/ask-the-apologist-similarities-between-masonic-and-mormon-temple-ritual#:~:text=Masons have special clothing%2C not,clothing worn outside the lodge.&text=Masonic ritualistic clothing have markings,means of conducting the ritual.

I did find this article printed in 2022 that may be why some members took liberties to wear them as they chose. https://people.howstuffworks.com/mormon-underwear.htm

But something interesting happened in 2019. The president and current prophet of the Church, Russell M. Nelson, announced changes to the temple recommend interview, including the question about garment wearing. Now, instead of asking members if they wear the garment "both day and night" (i.e. 24/7), there are instructions that the garment should be worn properly "throughout life."

"That's a big improvement," says April Young Bennett, a Latter-day Saint author and activist who believes that underwear choices, specifically women's underwear choices, shouldn't bar members from entering the temple. "Now it's possible for people to interpret 'throughout life' for themselves, and not necessarily feel like they can't go to the temple if they aren't wearing the garment 24/7."

 

 

Edited April 14, 2024 by Tacenda

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've been reading on the history of garments because I don't believe it's a commandment from God but a symbol in making covenants in the temple and it has been said that Joseph Smith used Freemasonry as a vehicle for members to covenant or promise things in order to get back to God and that would include wearing the garment with the markings like symbols used in Freemasonry. https://www.ldsliving.com/latter-day-saints-and-masons-5-fascinating-connections/s/80329 

And this about the markings Freemasons had on a garment but only worn during the ceremony I believe. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/ask-the-apologist-similarities-between-masonic-and-mormon-temple-ritual#:~:text=Masons have special clothing%2C not,clothing worn outside the lodge.&text=Masonic ritualistic clothing have markings,means of conducting the ritual.

I did find this article in printed in 2022 that may be why some members took liberties to wear them as they chose. https://people.howstuffworks.com/mormon-underwear.htm

There is a good article in Mormonism In Transition by Thomas Alexander that goes over the development of them during the early and more modern church (up to the 70s iirc) if you are interested in a details treatment. Your local library might have the book, but probably not as a bit older (1986) and not something that was that popular iirc (I think I picked up my copy at a BYU bookstore sale as I got several to give away to my nerdy friends and family).  But check just in case. I have given away my copy, so I can’t send it to you unfortunately. I think that was the article that started me realizing how much of the teaching surrounding how to wear and care for them came from people’s personal experiences and not actual doctrine or policy.  Hearing the very wide range of experiences online after reading it made that quite clear. 

https://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Transition-History-Latter-day-1890-1930/dp/0252065786

Edited April 14, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

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.

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, 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.

The GAs are serious- 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

The GAs are serious- 

It's our wedding garment and the napkins are on the table.

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Nobody seems to bat an eye when a woman wants to skip her garments to wear short shorts or a strapless dress,

Definitely not accurate.  
But I certainly agree that women are the most quick to police dog other women’s clothing selections, and their garmentual practices.  

You’ve done it right all these years.  I envy your opportunity, since I was scared by my temple matron into incorrect personal opinion practices.  I have bitter feelings about that.