Page 2 of 5
Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 08:41
Notchet - your link isn't working. Can you try to post it again?
Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 09:25
ShipwreckLo wrote:I agree, that what happens between me and my husband is between us. The problem IS my husband. HE will not be ok once I finally work up the courage to tell him that I can't wear garments full time. The problem is inside my own home.
I have heard crazy stories about people trying to wear garments ALL the time, eg when washing, sticking just one leg in the water and the other in the TG. Obviously this is NOT practical. Unless you're out camping or in the military etc, one's best to change them every day, so there has to be some time we take them off. (Which is another thing about TGs - they stain far too easily with anything and everything, including grass stains if I sit on grass, food going through shirts and the much more embarrassing things that happen to us when ill.)
TGs are supposedly spiritual protection, but they are also for modesty. And a couple doesn't need to be modest in private if they're married according to our own orthodox rules.
I think I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm planning on trying to get military style TGs for myself, as they go more with what I wear (a lot of greens, browns, blue, black and other dark colors)
Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 17:42
SamBee wrote:TGs are supposedly spiritual protection, but they are also for modesty.
It would be nice if the concept of the garment would stay more rooted in spiritual symbolism. There's no need for the garment to indirectly enforce modesty. People dress modestly before they ever get endowed. If the garment never existed endowed people would dress modestly for better reasons than feeling the need to cover up some other piece of clothing.
Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 18:05
"Covering nakedness" and "modesty" can be very different things, depending on who is doing the defining.
Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 06:08
I so agree, Ray. I am perfectly comfortable, and feel modest, in the middle of mid-Atlantic summer wearing a sleeveless (not spaghetti straps, but sleeveless) shirt and shorts to my mid-thigh. But no. I must always be in a tshirt and long shorts, which quite honestly makes me feel like I'm dressed like a boy.
I feel like I've lost my agency to decide what to wear and that violates the very premise of God's plan...for us to choose for ourselves. If the Church thinks that Heavenly Father is concerned with my underwear, then we are doing it wrong. What I can wear is HARDLY a big moral decision. Church tells us that we are the symbols of our faith and not to wear crosses, but then demands us to wear symbolic underwear all the time? Something is off there. I am so tired of having this affect the testimony that I fought long and hard for.
Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 07:18
Your delima is causing you emotional discomfort that you don't need as it did with me for some time. "Agency" is too often used in the church to denote freedom to choose what is not right. I believe agency is also used to choose what IS right, or best for you, even if it goes against common social beliefs. That could be a whole other thread.
My wife is similar to your husband in that there is no room for questioning, validating or self reasoning in her world concerning church issues. She knows nothing except what she reads and what she is taught, similar to the majority and that's OK unless you have a curious and probing personality. We are not all the same sheepole. Before I was endowed it really bothered me and still does that she has to wear garments to bed all night every night. It creates some real problems for being spontaneous. Even if you want to cuddle there is a protective barrier between you and spouse. As far as wearing my garments ALL the time, there are some days when my skin just needs a break. It is refreshing and healthy to let air flow under a loose shirt on a warm day. I was worried about the judgement I would receive from my wife when she would see that I didn't wear garments for the day but I was prepared for a short discussion and my reasons couldn't be disputed. There were some comments at first but they have gone away. A spouse is not an interviewer. I exercise a lot and I feel it is not appropriate to be wearing garments when perspiring profusely and that includes hiking or even taking long brisk walks on hot days. I even work in the yard with my shirt off
. These are my own personnel limits and I am prepared to discuss them with wife or any leaders except they are personnel and I have the right to keep it that way. In other words I have limits on my discussions too.
My belief is that garments are symbolic. Even the markings are symbolic and a reminder of sacred covenants. Not wearing every minute of every day does not diminish my spiritually or protection. Over time maybe since it would be disobedient and violating a covenant and eventually I would not feel the reminder. But it's like keeping a prayer in your heart, it doesn't go away just because you forget or neglect to pray or read you scriptures one morning. You get right back to it and stay on course.
This was kind of a long winded reply and more of an opportunity to get off my chest my own personnel opinion. I have only recently come to these understandings and it has really set me free. I am using my agency for my own good. Hope this helps in some way.
Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 07:52
ShipwreckLo wrote:I feel like I've lost my agency to decide what to wear and that violates the very premise of God's plan...for us to choose for ourselves. If the Church thinks that Heavenly Father is concerned with my underwear, then we are doing it wrong.
I agree ShipwreckLo...I think Heavenly Father hardly cares what kind of underwear we wear. They tell us "the wearing of Gs is an outward expression of your inner devotion to God". I have come to believe TGs have been/are used as a behavior control and screening measure by the church, designed to keep temple admission exclusive. Club membership becomes more desirable when membership is extended to only a select (worthy) few. Remember how special you felt as a kid when you were finally found worthy and admitted into the older kid's "club"...this same practice applies to temple admission requirements. Other enduring examples of clubs: exclusive Golf and Country Clubs, Free Masons, Sororities and Fraternities, etc....all simply clubs you have to pay, earn, and/or prove yourself worthy for admission.
GITO (Garments in Temple ONLY) is destined to fail, because this would remove an easily detected club membership requirement.
Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 09:08
Kipper wrote:"Agency" is too often used in the church to denote freedom to choose what is not right. I believe agency is also used to choose what IS right, or best for you, even if it goes against common social beliefs.
Words of wisdom indeed!
Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 17:20
I love the symbolism of the garment and simply wish, in this case, the temple wording (wear throughout life and not defile) and the handbook instruction about who gets to determine how it is worn (each individual member) was followed - meaning I believe in teaching a principle and allowing people to govern themselves.
Posted: 19 Jul 2014, 07:58
What does "defile" mean in this context, Ray? I take it something spiritual.