Yes, another question on garments

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
Kumahito
Posts: 284
Joined: 24 May 2012, 17:31

Yes, another question on garments

Post by Kumahito » 30 Jul 2013, 02:07

Okay, so here's another question on garments. In the TR interview, there is question that reads substantially as follows: "Do you wear the garment both night and day as previously instructed in the temple and in accordance with the covenants which you have made?" Now, here's my question ... where in the temple ordinances did I covenant to wear them night and day? Where am I instructed that I should wear them 24/7/365? I recall the four major covenants we make, and there's nothing about wearing garments in there. We're told what the garments represent, the significance of the markings, and are instructed that they will be a shield and protection for us. I don't recall anywhere making a covenant regarding them. Now granted, it's been a long long time since I participated in intiatory sessions, but I don't remember it there, either. In fact, for the intiatory I only remember being washed, blessed and clothed. I don't remember me making any covenants in that stage. Am I wrong here? What am I missing?
"An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all."
- Oscar Wilde

GBSmith
Posts: 975
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 08:51

Re: Yes, another question on garments

Post by GBSmith » 30 Jul 2013, 05:41

Kumahito wrote:Okay, so here's another question on garments. In the TR interview, there is question that reads substantially as follows: "Do you wear the garment both night and day as previously instructed in the temple and in accordance with the covenants which you have made?" Now, here's my question ... where in the temple ordinances did I covenant to wear them night and day? Where am I instructed that I should wear them 24/7/365? I recall the four major covenants we make, and there's nothing about wearing garments in there. We're told what the garments represent, the significance of the markings, and are instructed that they will be a shield and protection for us. I don't recall anywhere making a covenant regarding them. Now granted, it's been a long long time since I participated in intiatory sessions, but I don't remember it there, either. In fact, for the intiatory I only remember being washed, blessed and clothed. I don't remember me making any covenants in that stage. Am I wrong here? What am I missing?
There is no covenant regarding garments, only the instruction during the initiatory to "wear them throughout your life and not defile them". The rest has grown up over time based on personal interpretation by temple workers and church authorities trying to keep us in line. It would be interesting to try and list all of the dos and don'ts about garments that have come and gone through the years. For example a friend of my wife who is in her mid 70s recalls be advised when she was endowed prior to her marriage on how to shower without technically removing her garments. Another elderly patient of mine was was told to get the old ankles and wrists garments with the ties in the front so that he could have sex without removing them. In our ward they've started reading the section from the CHI on garments during the interview. All very interesting but I just hold to what I was instructed in the temple. That's enough.

User avatar
Reflexzero
Posts: 165
Joined: 15 Aug 2012, 19:58

Yes, another question on garments

Post by Reflexzero » 30 Jul 2013, 07:26

My bishop at the time was kind enough to instruct me that I didn't need to tie them around my toe when having a bath or being intimate. Nowadays, If they want me to wear them during sports, then they need to make performance garments.

It's all relative, and probably an indicator for obedience, like most other things. If you feel fine, then that is all that matters.

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16832
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Yes, another question on garments

Post by Curt Sunshine » 30 Jul 2013, 09:09

There is a relatively recent thread about this exact question that has some very good discussion. I will try to find it and bump it up for you to read and for any further comment.

The best one is: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3217&hilit=garments

It has 86 comments, and, toward the end of the thread, there are quotes straight from the handbook and comments about what that means in terms of counsel and covenant.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

User avatar
On Own Now
Posts: 1759
Joined: 18 Jan 2012, 12:45

Re: Yes, another question on garments

Post by On Own Now » 30 Jul 2013, 09:25

Like so many things in religion, garments are a great symbolic element that, when taken too literally, becomes a burden.

I look at garments as a daily symbolic act, putting them on, as a reminder to ourselves and a demonstration to God, that we have devoted ourselves to God. That in itself is a great idea. But with all kinds of rules and all sorts of dogma associated with it, it loses its deeper meaning and is relegated to the realm of mysticism. Even the temple itself, in my opinion, is only valuable as a symbolic act. In a ritual, we symbolically take on the identity of Adam and Eve (mankind) for whom this entire creation was set forth. We acknowledge our dependence on God in the face of opposition. We promise to be true to the Gospel. We approach the veil at the end of our existence where we demonstrate that we were faithful in keeping our promises and we enter into an exalted state in the presence of God. I see the specific covenants, signs, blessings, etc as all symbolic of God offering us a better life, our accepting it and keeping it. Nothing more. Garments are simply an extension of that ritual symbolism.

I think it very unfortunate that the temple ordinance, its symbols, and the garments are taken literally.

Roy
Posts: 6151
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Yes, another question on garments

Post by Roy » 30 Jul 2013, 10:03

Hawkgrrrl did an excellent job summarizing garment issues especially as they relate to women over at BCC:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/13/f ... ent-298379

She even gave practical suggestions for improvement. :thumbup:
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

Roadrunner
Posts: 890
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 15:17

Re: Yes, another question on garments

Post by Roadrunner » 30 Jul 2013, 18:08

Deleted
Last edited by Roadrunner on 30 Apr 2014, 15:33, edited 1 time in total.

Brown
Posts: 344
Joined: 28 Feb 2011, 01:23

Re: Yes, another question on garments

Post by Brown » 31 Jul 2013, 00:00

Technically couldn't one wear them day and night without wearing them ALL day and night? I mean like most temple questions it is pretty vague. I guess if I wore them from 4pm to 8pm that should cover it, right? :problem:

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16832
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Yes, another question on garments

Post by Curt Sunshine » 31 Jul 2013, 13:21

Yes, and I mentioned that in another thread.

Technically, "day and night" could mean putting them on each day and night at some point and immediately taking them off again.

I know that would be rejected by the VAST majority of members, but the actual wording can support it.

I also know someone who says that he nearly always is thinking about sex or is in the process of foreplay, and he views preparation and foreplay as part of sex, and he knows he doesn't have to wear the garment during sex . . . so he doesn't wear it whenever he is thinking about or preparing for sex. :lol: :oops: :silent: :lol:
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

User avatar
Meh Mormon
Posts: 77
Joined: 10 Jul 2013, 09:49

Re: Yes, another question on garments

Post by Meh Mormon » 31 Jul 2013, 14:08

Here's my 2 cents (Canadian of course).

I wear my garments a lot of the time. When I'm playing softball, football, working on the car, etc I do not wear them. Why? Because they can become damaged or soiled beyond saving. They are special to me, and are a reminder of my beliefs, so why would I wear them doing something that can damage them?
Ray Degraw wrote:Yes, and I mentioned that in another thread.

Technically, "day and night" could mean putting them on each day and night at some point and immediately taking them off again.

I know that would be rejected by the VAST majority of members, but the actual wording can support it.

I also know someone who says that he nearly always is thinking about sex or is in the process of foreplay, and he views preparation and foreplay as part of sex, and he knows he doesn't have to wear the garment during sex . . . so he doesn't wear it whenever he is thinking about or preparing for sex. :lol: :oops: :silent: :lol:
In that case, why are men even wearing them? Isn't there a statistic that shows that men think about sex every 4 seconds or something like that!! :thumbup:

Post Reply