Modifications to temple recommend interview with relation to garments

When you focus on the garments, it’s easy to see why some members notice & comment if you wear a blue shirt

to sacrament meeting. I did wear a blue shirt to church today. On purpose. Someone did make a comment.

I was thinking about how similar concerns pop up if you are married and not wearing your wedding rings.

For me, I stopped wearing mine because I was doing dishes all the time and had a tough time remembering where I put the rings and nearly losing them. My executive functioning limitations were creating a situation where I was increasingly likely to lose my rings for real – and I do value my rings enough to not want to throw them in the trash, not let them get mulched by something else. My marriage commitment didn’t stop because I wasn’t wearing my rings – because my commitment isn’t about my rings.

This stance brought up a few conversations, but eventually it settled out. The “nail on the coffin” for this conversation came from my husband though.

His fingers swelled up from either the medications he was taking or the shape of his body. We actually had to buy a ring cutter and cut the ring off (carefully) so that he wasn’t cutting the circulation off from his finger.

Since the essence of our marriage right now is learning “how to be in relation with each other” without causing active trauma or re-triggering each other while raising kids – it’s a good thing it’s “not about the rings”.

Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment

I assume that this had been added at some point because bishops across the world were being asked personal questions about how to wear the garment and also accommodate XYZ medical, sexual, or personal situation. They were not prepared to give this sort of advice and felt pretty weird about it and that feedback might have filtered up to top leadership. Eventually, this must have been added to let members know to work these sorts of questions out with the holy spirit for themselves.

Now the pendulum is swinging the other way. Leadership is thinking, “Oh no! we told the membership to work this out for themselves and we don’t like how some of them are doing that!” and so this part was removed.

I feel that some Christians decision to wear a cross necklace is similarly an “outward expression of an inner commitment.”

In the cross necklace example, it’s largely the individual that makes the decision to wear the necklace. I’m sure surrounding culture and traditions factor into an individual’s decision, but ultimately it’s a personal decision.

With the garment, it feels more like the culture imposing its will on the individual. It would be like the local preacher getting onto members of their congregation for not wearing a cross necklace or someone’s ability to fully participate in their church community being limited because they don’t wear a cross necklace.

In that sense, the garment is less a personal expression of belief and more a cultural obligation or expectation.

You could always argue that if you don’t want to wear garments, don’t get endowed. The issue there is that we put unrelated goals behind the endowment. What if you want to be sealed but don’t want to wear garments for the rest of your life? What if you want to serve a mission but don’t want to wear garments for the rest of your life? What if you just want the ordinance that is billed as being required for your salvation but you don’t want to wear the garment for the rest of your life? You’re out of luck because you have to go through the initiatory in order to do those things.

Unfortunately the temple has that effect. The requirements inadvertently apply pressure on someone to do or accept something they may otherwise never do or accept. I’ve heard many anecdotes of people that only wanted to get sealed/married and garments and the endowment ended up becoming a burden they had to endure. They couldn’t do one without being obligated to do the other.

…I’m off track. My only point above was the origin of the outward expression. Something we choose to be expressive vs. something that’s chosen for us to be expressive.

It stops feeling expressive of me when someone else is making the decisions.

Right, in my example I don’t wear my wedding ring and I also am intermittent in wearing garments. If I had a cross necklace, I might wear it at sometimes and not on others. When I wear it it might be an outward expression that I am a Christian. On those times when I am not wearing it I am no less of a Christian. When I am not wearing my wedding ring, I am no less of a husband to my wife.

I fully agree that it seems strange and manipulative that we put this sort of effort into policing this.

I like the former wording a lot better (except the reference to the endowment, since the garment instruction is in the initiatory) but I still can answer, “Yes,” to the actual questions. I can see the statements, legitimately, as guidance – and secondary to the questions.

The main problem for many, I think, is that they won’t feel comfortable making that decision with the additional statements – and might have difficulty answering the questions with an honest, sincere, “Yes.” (given the statements)