New Garment Design for Women being Tested (and for Men Too)

[JVW]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I could write an entire paper walking people through the scriptures and principles behind this step by step but I won't.  This isn't some random theory, it's literally the plan of salvation exactly as we've been taught in Sunday School.

I know you said you wouldn't but I think it would be very interesting to read a paper connecting your interpretation of the symbolism of the garment to the scriptures and teachings of the prophets.

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But you have to see the connections.

First you have to recognize the connection between the temples (which teach the plan) and our mortal life/body.  Look how many scriptures compare our bodies to temples, mostly in the Savior's teachings.

Then see the similarities between them in scriptures.

I see the connection between my body and the temple. The ancients in other cultures (not Christian) viewed the human body as a universe. A dedicated temple made of materials that God has made (no bricks!) is holy and pure before God and God dwells there. A body dedicated to God, from from the dust of the earth and God's spittle, purified and sanctified through the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost is holy and pure before God and God dwells there. So far, this has nothing to do with garments.

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In the case of the garment it is specifically connected to the veil and EVERYTHING that entails.  (Endowed members should be very aware of that the veil of the temple and the garment are connected).

Yes, the garment is connected to the veil. The veil that represents Jesus Christ, just as the garment represents Jesus Christ. I recently heard someone rant a little about being upset at the usage of the word "atonement" and "at-one-ment". It dissociates the method by which Christ reconciles us to God. What Jesus did was covering. Our sins are covered in the blood of the Lamb and hidden from before God's sight when we accept Christ. The garment represents everything that God's plan focuses on very well in that regard. All that He has made points to Christ and to His ultimate act of divine love.

The garment also represents the garment that God made and gave to Adam and Eve. He made it from (I believe traditionally it's believed to have been a ram or a sheep of some kind). He performed the first animal sacrifice and may have used part of the horn for a needle and the wool for thread. I have no idea how much of any of this tradition holds credence, but I think it's beautiful to consider it being passed down through the generations from father to son as a holy relic, and the patriarch or firstborn inheriting it to wear. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if it was the coat that Joseph of Egypt was given by his father who was able to recognize the coat even after he became blind.

Anyways, I digress. So God sacrificed an animal to make the first garment, and He gave the Eternal sacrifice so that we may all be covered. So far, I'm not losing any symbolism from a shorter sleeve or lack of collar and ties.

As far as the symbols on the garment are concerned, they cover the breast, navel, and thigh. As long as the garment covers those parts of the body then I think it'll be ok. If the garment was turned into a hat or shoes then there'd be some serious concerns.

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Take the original garment design, compare it to JS History 1:31 and Luke 23:45.

I don't understand the connection you're making with the robe that angels wear. They don't wear anything underneath the robe. Garments are to be worn under the clothes. I do see that the white robe symbolizes purity and Christ covering them. No symbols are mentioned to be on the robe, and again, they aren't wearing anything underneath. Was the garment ever supposed to be worn like a robe and worn about in public over the clothes or with no clothes on?

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Understand that the veil of forgetfulness placed on Adam and Eve as well as the veil we use to describe the separation between us and God when fallen is parted by Christ.  Just as in the temple.  Just as the garment provides the separation between the fallen world and the cleansed person after the initiatories.

The veil of forgetfulness is not parted by Christ, it is parted when we die or if God gives us a vision or something, even then, I don't think that a revelation from God restores our memories. And off the top of my head, I can't recall any revelations in the scriptures that involved receiving pre-Earth memories that one had forgotten. There can be an argument that any revelation is just opening up a hidden memory so we are receiving knowledge that our spirit already knows, but I don't know that that is doctrine.

Also, God doesn't part my garments. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that God parts us from the world and the vehicle He uses is the garment?

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The plan of salvation (fall to exaltation).

The temple endowment from creation to exaltation.

Our mortal lives from creation to fall to passing through the veil.

The original garment represents the entire process, its original design and symbols included the whole plan from beginning to end.

I'm no garment historian, but I can't imagine the garment ever having the 3 degrees of glory represented on it. Or the two trees. Or whatever. But let's say that the garment was intended and designed to represent the whole plan of salvation. I think that the human body would have easily been designed to represent that same thing. I'm sure if I looked for it I could see the plan in my anatomy in a variety of ways.

I think that you may be missing the forest for the trees. The plan of salvation has been revealed for one, singular, ultimate purpose. To help mankind gain a desire to turn more fully to Jesus Christ. The garment represents Jesus Christ, and the more ways in which I can deepen my understanding of who He is and how He covers me the better off I'll be. If the garment is less effective now than it used to be in helping someone focus on Jesus Christ, there may be an element of its construction at fault, but it's more than likely that most of the connection is lost because we live in this hellish world that is governed by "the god of this world" Satan. It's hard to stay focused on Christ in day-to-day life, even with a garment (representing Him) covering my body.

In general I think the church has been backing off of being front and center in someone's life (and the changes to the garment may reflect that). And I think that's a good thing. Hopefully one day the testimony that begins with "I'd like to bear my testimony that I know this church is true..." will be replaced with "I'd like to bear my testimony that Christ is my personal savior..." In a way, in spite of all of the good that the church brings, if it gets confused as the rock of a personal testimony, it will be responsible for leading people away from Christ and not towards Him.

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There is a wonderful quote from Pres. John Taylor that I won't post but even Wikipedia has it.

You just have to see the connections.

I don't see the connections yet, I hope you will further elucidate in a further post so I can start connecting the dots between the plan of salvation and the temple garment. Thank you.

[smac97]

 

[blackstrap]

I once read that in military / combat zones , just the marks alone could be carried without using the garment. True ??

[The Nehor]

Finally! It is hot and humid here! GIMMIE!

Fourth quarter of 2025………so sad.

Probably can’t wear a tank top but could wear a sleeveless shirt. Air on shoulders feels good.

I am sensual. Not sure about carnal and devilish.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm just really glad that I didn't live in the era where it went to the ankles and wrists!  It seems clear (if we take visitation descriptions to be accurate) that no one wears garments in the next life.  I'm good with changes as long as God condones them.   

From what I have read:

There was not a general expectation of wearing them day in and day out every day and every night in the very early days. Generally members had one set that they cut the marks in during the ordinance and then they were sewed up afterwards. It was more a sacred personal relic you might wear for special occasions. Some have suggested you would only wear them in the temple but there weren’t any reasons to go to the temple until baptisms for the dead were moved there and when the garments were first introduced there wasn’t even a temple. Further temple work for the dead also came later. Imagine trying to work a farm in the summer in Utah or Arizona wearing a union suit and other clothing on top of it. Yikes.

Again, this is hard to parse out. Most of the accounts we have of the early temple garment are potentially heavily biased and many are suspect.

As best I can tell the emphasis on wearing the garment all the time phased in gradually but really became a commonly expected thing in the mid 20th century. I really wonder if this really took off in the 60s when air conditioning became common.

I am subject to correction though.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

I once read that in military / combat zones , just the marks alone could be carried without using the garment. True ??

I can see that happening when they didn’t make special versions.

Apparently now you submit your required military version and they will see the marks in. 

I vaguely remember this, but don’t know if maybe you’ve mentioned it before?  I can’t find anything on it. Didn’t look that hard though. 

Edited October 18, 2024 by Calm

[Peacefully]

Delete

 

Edited October 19, 2024 by Peacefully

[Peacefully]

I enjoy Janet Reiss’ writing. I don’t agree with everything she says but I admire her willingness to put her thoughts out there. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/10/19/will-young-latter-day-saints-wear/

We do agree on the almost ridiculousness of covering our shoulders all these years. 

Edited October 19, 2024 by Peacefully

[Rain]

23 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I enjoy Janet Reiss’ writing. I don’t agree with everything she says but I admire her willingness to put her thoughts out there. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/10/19/will-young-latter-day-saints-wear/

We do agree 

"I expect that the one-two combo the church has given this year will increase compliance on the part of many younger members. If the “stick” is the return of the “day and night” language, which connects a failure to keep your garments on all the time with possibly flunking a temple recommend interview, the “carrot” is that the church has proved willing — multiple times in recent years — to make the garment it more palatable.

"Will it, I wonder, be enough?"

I think it is wishful thinking if anyone thinks that the garment/slip changes will change how much people are wearing them.  It may change for women who quit wearing bottoms for health/physical/menstrual reasons. If you are comfortable not wearing them for comfort or just because you don't feel you need to etc, the sleeves will change nothing.  It may however keep some on the borderline of deciding to stop or not.

 

Edit: Didn't mean to quote the whole article.

Edited October 20, 2024 by Rain

[Ragerunner]

Thanks for posting the article. I do think some of these changes are to help accommodate different clothing styles outside the ‘western culture’. As well as to help members in hot climates or during hot summer months for others. As a person that lives in a hot, humid climate I appreciate the options.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/17/2024 at 12:31 PM, MiserereNobis said:

........................

But hey, what do I know. I just wear a scapular

A monastic habit, or with the color of a religious order?

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A monastic habit, or with the color of a religious order?

The brown scapular:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapulars-brown-scapular-of-our-lady-of-mount-carmel/

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The brown scapular:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapulars-brown-scapular-of-our-lady-of-mount-carmel/

Oh my. The clothes you guys wear are totally differend then what the saints wear. The garments who the saints wear aren't visible at all and the clothes around it are just normal random clothes you know. 

God bless. ✝️

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Oh my. The clothes you guys wear are totally differend then what the saints wear. The garments who the saints wear aren't visible at all and the clothes around it are just normal random clothes you know. 

God bless. ✝️

You are probably looking at the habits, which are the clothing for nuns and monks.

The brown scapular is small and worn under the clothing. No one is able to see it.

[Dario_M]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You are probably looking at the habits, which are the clothing for nuns and monks.

Yes that's the imagine i have. With all those lovely nons, were you can see the black and white clothes really clearly you know. 

[Stargazer]

I was Reddit just a bit ago looking at r/military stories (because I've posted a few). It happens that I'm also following r/exmormon and saw a post that had a reply complaining that the church and/or God is too worried about underwear useful for only about 0.005% of the human race, when other things like war and pestilence are getting no attention.

Made me think about the sparrows that Jesus said God pays attention to when they fall.

 

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I was Reddit just a bit ago looking at r/military stories (because I've posted a few). It happens that I'm also following r/exmormon and saw a post that had a reply complaining that the church and/or God is too worried about underwear useful for only about 0.005% of the human race, when other things like war and pestilence are getting no attention.

Made me think about the sparrows that Jesus said God pays attention to when they fall.

 

Do they think that God’s not paying any attention to wars and pestilence because He’s distracted by garments?  

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do they think that God’s not paying any attention to wars and pestilence because He’s distracted by garments?  

Seems like God is capabale of multi-tasking.  More importantly, a change to garment styles (not symbols, not covenants) feels like something He's probably fine letting the church leadership handle on their own.

In other words, I don't believe that the design of the new "tank top" and slips were revealed from on high.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do they think that God’s not paying any attention to wars and pestilence because He’s distracted by garments?  

That's what it seemed like. Except that I got the impression the one making the comment and his fellow-travelers either didn't believe in God or thought what they said was anti-Mormon. 

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Seems like God is capabale of multi-tasking.  More importantly, a change to garment styles (not symbols, not covenants) feels like something He's probably fine letting the church leadership handle on their own.

In other words, I don't believe that the design of the new "tank top" and slips were revealed from on high.

Bingo.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Seems like God is capable of multi-tasking.  More importantly, a change to garment styles (not symbols, not covenants) feels like something He's probably fine letting the church leadership handle on their own.

In other words, I don't believe that the design of the new "tank top" and slips were revealed from on high.

I agree, though I do think there was likely inspiration sought to make sure that God agreed they could handle it on their own.  Kind of a 'this is where we are heading so let us know if it's way out in left field before we get there' kind of situation.

But it still annoys me when people try to argue that it's unreasonable to believe that God is involved in small problems when big problems still exist.  Like you said, that argument essentially means that the God of the universe cannot multitask and has limited time and resources, which doesn't make a lot of sense given who God is purported to be.

 

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, though I do think there was likely inspiration sought to make sure that God agreed they could handle it on their own.  Kind of a 'this is where we are heading so let us know if it's way out in left field before we get there' kind of situation.

But it still annoys me when people try to argue that it's unreasonable to believe that God is involved in small problems when big problems still exist.  Like you said, that argument essentially means that the God of the universe cannot multitask and has limited time and resources, which doesn't make a lot of sense given who God is purported to be.

 

I agree, but I get why it can be really hurtful, bothersome or uncomfortable. Especially if you felt left alone when you really needed help at some point.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

That's what it seemed like. Except that I got the impression the one making the comment and his fellow-travelers either didn't believe in God or thought what they said was anti-Mormon. 

He probably doesn't believe in God, but it's not a good argument against His existence.  

[bluebell]

Just now, Rain said:

I agree, but I get why it can be really hurtful, bothersome or uncomfortable. Especially if you felt left alone when you really needed help at some point.

Definitely. I'd guess we all know what that feels like and it sucks rocks.  

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I was Reddit just a bit ago looking at r/military stories (because I've posted a few). It happens that I'm also following r/exmormon and saw a post that had a reply complaining that the church and/or God is too worried about underwear useful for only about 0.005% of the human race, when other things like war and pestilence are getting no attention.

Made me think about the sparrows that Jesus said God pays attention to when they fall.

Galatians 5:9 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."   Latter-day Saints are that little bit of leaven.