NOM

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:29 am**

So the temple recommend interview question is: "Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?"

Why do you think this is asked? I can't think of any place in the endowment when you covenant to wear the garment. You are just instructed to wear it throughout your life in the initiatory and there is nothing in the language about a covenant or day and night. Am I right?

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:05 am**

felixfabulous wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:29 am So the temple recommend interview question is: "Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?"

Why do you think this is asked? I can't think of any place in the endowment when you covenant to wear the garment. You are just instructed to wear it throughout your life in the initiatory and there is nothing in the language about a covenant or day and night. Am I right?

You are correct that there is no covenant to wear polygamy panties 24x7, though some believers will tell you it is "implied".

Why do they ask? It's just one of many control mechanisms employed by the corporation. (My useless opinion, of course...)

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:41 am**

The recommend interview question is grossly inaccurate. You never covenant to wear the garment. In the temple, patrons are instructed to wear the garment. In spite of the many other covenants in the temple, though, there is never a covenant regarding the garment. The endowment ceremony states that you should wear it throughout your life. It doesn't say anything about when you should wear it. It doesn't mention night and day in reference to the garment. The Initiatory also instructs you to wear it throughout your life but doesn't provide any further details.

As to why the question is phrased the way it is, it is exactly as wtfluff describes: control. It is one of the more effective mechanisms the Church has for controlling its members. With it they can control how you dress from the external to the innermost layers. It's a huge tribal identifier. Particularly it marks those who express a sufficient amount of loyalty and devotion to the organization. It's one of the pieces of their sex-obsessed teachings.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:29 pm**

The question does not ask if you wear garments every day, or all night.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:08 pm**

GoodBoy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:29 pm The question does not ask if you wear garments every day, or all night.

Yes it does. The temple question is defined by the OP.
However, we do not make this covenant in the temple.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:09 pm**

2bizE wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:08 pm
GoodBoy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:29 pm The question does not ask if you wear garments every day, or all night.
Yes it does. The temple question is defined by the OP.
However, we do not make this covenant in the temple. But I do get your thoughts. It does not specify every night and every day and all the time.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:18 pm**

I've asked this question to a few people, one person (a temple worker) asked the Temple President. Some believers were honest and said it's not a covenant but the Church was concerned that people weren't wearing their garments all the time and put it in there (which I think is honest) and others tried to say it was part of the obedience covenant (Temple President answer). By that logic, you could ask someone if they were honoring their temple covenant to home teach or do family history. If you are a believer, I think it's misleading to hold a covenant over someone's head that they never made. For me it would be like on your wedding day if your wife said "I would love it if you would bring me flowers throughout our marriage." Then she said "On our wedding day you promised me you would bring me flowers once a week." You never made a specific promise and certainly never promised once a week.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:33 pm**

Covenant or instruction? What's the difference really? The reality is you go to the temple and are handed a new pair of underwear and are expected to wear that type for the rest of your life. The only other expectation is to report your compliance of wearing such underwear bi-annually in your temple recommend interview.

I wish the church would dump the daily requirement to wear the garment and make it only a part of temple worship inside the temple.

How normal would that make Mormons?

It's funny to hear someone ask "why can't Mormons show their shoulders?" I never realized this is a true statement. Mormons are not allowed to show their shoulders as garments prohibit it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:58 pm**

felixfabulous wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:18 pm ...others tried to say it was part of the obedience covenant (Temple President answer).

This does seem a bit far-reaching. It becomes a good blanket-clause they can point to whenever a new "covenant" needs to be followed.

My favorite part of that interview question is the blurb that gets read about the garments themselves. To heavily paraphrase...

"You should always where them, even while working in the garden... but its between you and God when you should where them."

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:00 pm**

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:33 pmI wish the church would dump the daily requirement to wear the garment and make it only a part of temple worship inside the temple.

This. ^

Ceremonial religious clothing should absolutely be worn during religions ceremonies! (And never at any other time.

)

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:01 pm**

On a related note, and I don't mean to hijack this thread, so I hope I'm not.

My wife is a big believer of the "physical protection" that garments provide. While I've heard the same thing from lots of different people, there is nothing in the language of the temple or recommend questions that makes me think any physical protection is promised.

Does anyone know, historically, where that teaching came from?

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:05 pm**

Without getting too personal.....I actually have physiological reasons for preferring the garment. It's purely a physical comfort issue for me.

And so I wear it even though I have had my name removed from the records of the church. I'm sure there are some TBMS out there that would go ballistic

if they knew but hey, nobody tells me anymore what kind of underwear I can wear and what I can't. So they'll have to lump it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:25 pm**

græy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:01 pm On a related note, and I don't mean to hijack this thread, so I hope I'm not.

My wife is a big believer of the "physical protection" that garments provide. While I've heard the same thing from lots of different people, there is nothing in the language of the temple or recommend questions that makes me think any physical protection is promised.

Does anyone know, historically, where that teaching came from?

If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith and others were NOT wearing their garments when they were killed by the mob but the guy whose pocket watch stopped the bullet was. I can't remember his name at the moment. Maybe this had something to do with it.

Bill Marriott's interview may also have something to do with it!

Posted: **Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:39 pm**

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:25 pm
græy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:01 pm On a related note, and I don't mean to hijack this thread, so I hope I'm not.

My wife is a big believer of the "physical protection" that garments provide. While I've heard the same thing from lots of different people, there is nothing in the language of the temple or recommend questions that makes me think any physical protection is promised.

Does anyone know, historically, where that teaching came from?
If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith and others were NOT wearing their garments when they were killed by the mob but the guy whose pocket watch stopped the bullet was. I can't remember his name at the moment. Maybe this had something to do with it.

Bill Marriott's interview may also have something to do with it!

John Taylor I believe.

Posted: **Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:24 pm**

græy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:58 pm This does seem a bit far-reaching. It becomes a good blanket-clause they can point to whenever a new "covenant" needs to be followed.

My favorite part of that interview question is the blurb that gets read about the garments themselves. To heavily paraphrase...

"You should always where them, even while working in the garden... but its between you and God when you should where them."

I can't remember the exact language, maybe someone can find the statement on garments read during the TR interview. I remember the language about not taking them off, even to work in the yard. I do not remember any language saying it's between you and god when you should wear them. It's strongly implied that you should only take them off for activities that can't "reasonably be done" with the garment on. Like taking a shower.

If there's language that implies that it's between the person and god that would be news to me, and I'd love to see the statement.

There's also a section in handbook 1 about how and when garments are to be worn but I don't think it's exactly like what is read during a TR interview. Maybe it is, I don't know. If you can't find the instructions for garments for the TR interview, maybe someone could post the section from handbook 1.

Posted: **Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:17 am**

nibbler wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:24 pm If there's language that implies that it's between the person and god that would be news to me, and I'd love to see the statement.

There's also a section in handbook 1 about how and when garments are to be worn but I don't think it's exactly like what is read during a TR interview. Maybe it is, I don't know. If you can't find the instructions for garments for the TR interview, maybe someone could post the section from handbook 1.

It's definitely in there. The second paragraph on the info blurb on garments says don't take them off for anything you can reasonably do with them on, like working in the garden. The third paragraph says the individual should pray to the Lord to get answers for themselves about what is appropriate... or something like that. Here is the relevant text from Handbook 1. The wording from the temple recommend book is very similar to the parts I've bolded:

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment. When issuing temple recommends, priesthood leaders should teach the importance of wearing the garment properly. Leaders also emphasize the blessings that are related to this sacred privilege. These blessings are conditioned on worthiness and faithfulness in keeping temple covenants.

The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. When properly worn, it provides protection against temptation and evil. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.

Note there is no promise of physical protection...

Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.

Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn.

The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect at all times. Garments should be kept off the floor. They should also be kept clean and mended. After garments are washed, they should not be hung in public areas to dry. Nor should they be displayed or exposed to the view of people who do not understand their significance.

Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment.

So... there it is.

I remember hearing when I first went through the temple not to leave garments on the floor. But I've talked to many others who were never told anything about that. While growing up my parents just put their dirty clothes (garments included) in a pile on the floor in the back of their closet. Thoughts?

Posted: **Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:44 am**

Thanks for the info.

Posted: **Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:06 pm**

Emower wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:39 pm
Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:25 pm
græy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:01 pm On a related note, and I don't mean to hijack this thread, so I hope I'm not.

My wife is a big believer of the "physical protection" that garments provide. While I've heard the same thing from lots of different people, there is nothing in the language of the temple or recommend questions that makes me think any physical protection is promised.

Does anyone know, historically, where that teaching came from?
If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith and others were NOT wearing their garments when they were killed by the mob but the guy whose pocket watch stopped the bullet was. I can't remember his name at the moment. Maybe this had something to do with it.

Bill Marriott's interview may also have something to do with it!
John Taylor I believe.

I thought it was Willard Richards, he was uninjured through it all.

Posted: **Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:05 pm**

Linked wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:06 pm
Emower wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:39 pm
Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:25 pm
If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith and others were NOT wearing their garments when they were killed by the mob but the guy whose pocket watch stopped the bullet was. I can't remember his name at the moment. Maybe this had something to do with it.

Bill Marriott's interview may also have something to do with it!
John Taylor I believe.
I thought it was Willard Richards, he was uninjured through it all.

I think you are right, John Taylor's life was saved by the watch, but Willard Richards was the uninjured guy wearing garments.

Posted: **Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:57 pm**

græy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:01 pm On a related note, and I don't mean to hijack this thread, so I hope I'm not.

My wife is a big believer of the "physical protection" that garments provide. While I've heard the same thing from lots of different people, there is nothing in the language of the temple or recommend questions that makes me think any physical protection is promised.

Does anyone know, historically, where that teaching came from?

I found an interesting passage...

Brigham Young thought the garments had magical powers, saying that Willard Richards had been protected from bodily harm when he was shot at in Carthage, Illinois, standing alongside Joseph and Hyrum Smith, who were assassinated. The Smiths had apparently removed their garments due to the heat, while Richards had not. “The balls flew around [Richards], riddled his clothes,” Young said, “and shaved a passage through one of his whiskers” but did not otherwise harm him.

The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History (Kindle Locations 565-569). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

So if there's a drive-by shooting while you're mowing the lawn in August...

NOM

Garments Question

Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question

Re: Garments Question