Another Garmet Question(s)

[Anonymous]

In another thread I got a link to this article (talk?) from August 1997 Ensign by Elder Carlos E. Asay about the wearing and meaning of garments.

The first paragraph reads:

A few years ago, in a seminar for new temple presidents and matrons, Elder James E. Faust, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, told about his being called to serve as a General Authority. He was asked only one question by President Harold B. Lee: “Do you wear the garments properly?” to which he answered in the affirmative. He then asked if President Lee wasn’t going to ask him about his worthiness. President Lee replied that he didn’t need to, for he had learned from experience that how one wears the garment is the expression of how the individual feels about the Church and everything that relates to it. It is a measure of one’s worthiness and devotion to the gospel.

Does this first paragraph set the tone for the rest of the talk? Does the rest of the talk clarify this? I have only read half because I am at work and some paragraphs I need to read more than once and think about. Are the words in bold really an observation by Pres Lee or are they criteria for all members? “…It is a measure of one’s worthiness and devotion to the gospel”. Is this manipulation by guilt in the highest form, with a warm smile, or a requirement that we all should conform to? I am very sensitive to manipulation ( don’t know how else to describe it) and this is really under my skin unless I am totally misunderstanding it.

[Anonymous]

I struggled with that talk when I read it. In fact I quit reading anything else on the board because I was overwhelmed by what the talk said.

I realized that a talk like that really effects the way people judge themselves and each other. Even though many people use the disclaimer that we don’t covenant to wear the garment officially – Elder Asay pretty much implies that it is a marker for our true worthiness.

I would be happy to read how others attribute his talk. I also tried to remember that I am learning that every conference talk is not doctrine and that last conference we were told in a conference talk that not everything some one says over the pulpit is doctrine, that sometimes the speaker is speaking as a man. What I still don’t know is how to discern when a talk is just a man giving an opinion or when it’s truly doctrine of God.

I wish I could help more. I guess like everything else seems to be, it’s up to us to decide. I love it when all of it is on my shoulders. So much less pressure. 😆

[Anonymous]

First, individuals, even individual leaders at the highest level, have different opinions about everything. This is a good example.

Second, Elder Asay is very conservative. Elder Faust wasn’t. Hence, in my opinion, Elder Asay’s attraction to that question and Elder Faust’s surprise at it.

Third, and this is extremely important, this was an interview with someone who had been called to be a General Authority. Really, what else is there to ask to try to make someone think a bit? They all have current temple recommends, so the obvious loyalty markers are no-brainers.

Finally, I actually like that the question was non-specific and vague – using only the word “properly”. I don’t like the rest of the talk (and Elder Asay’s talks usually don’t do much for me), but I liked the wording of the question itself.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray – I knew someone else would help me look at it with a more hopeful view. One of the things I keep in my mind is a story a friend of mine told me after she was re-instated to her temple covenants. I don’t feel right about sharing the story but the advice she received was from a promiment GA who was visiting for a regional meeting and his advice to her was more liberal than Elder Asays. This was largely due to her inter-religious marriage. But I keep it as that insight that GA’s really do have different takes on things.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

last conference we were told in a conference talk that not everything some one says over the pulpit is doctrine, that sometimes the speaker is speaking as a man.

:

Which talk was that? I’d love to add it to my quotes list.

[Anonymous]

Ray. I’m continually surprised you have been “successful” in the church. I don’t think we belong to the same church.

Keep up the good work.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Mackay – I did make an error, the comment was from last years April conference and the speaker was Elder D. Todd Christopherson. The talk was entitled The Doctrine of Christ. The quote is

“At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5 “

That is at least what I was referring to. If I’m off base, please let me know.

[Anonymous]

Kipper wrote:

In another thread I got a link to this article (talk?) from August 1997 Ensign by Elder Carlos E. Asay about the wearing and meaning of garments.

The first paragraph reads:

A few years ago, in a seminar for new temple presidents and matrons, Elder James E. Faust, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, told about his being called to serve as a General Authority. He was asked only one question by President Harold B. Lee: “Do you wear the garments properly?” to which he answered in the affirmative. He then asked if President Lee wasn’t going to ask him about his worthiness. President Lee replied that he didn’t need to, for he had learned from experience that how one wears the garment is the expression of how the individual feels about the Church and everything that relates to it. It is a measure of one’s worthiness and devotion to the gospel.

Does this first paragraph set the tone for the rest of the talk? Does the rest of the talk clarify this? I have only read half because I am at work and some paragraphs I need to read more than once and think about. Are the words in bold really an observation by Pres Lee or are they criteria for all members? “…It is a measure of one’s worthiness and devotion to the gospel”. Is this manipulation by guilt in the highest form, with a warm smile, or a requirement that we all should conform to? I am very sensitive to manipulation ( don’t know how else to describe it) and this is really under my skin unless I am totally misunderstanding it.

In the temple recommend interview, there is an additional paragraph that bishopric members are encouraged to read to the member re: wearing garments. In that paragraph, there is a reference to this very idea. I don’t have that line memorized, but I’ll give it my best shot: The wearing of the garment is an outward expression of a member’s inner commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, that’s not a direct quote, but it’s pretty close.

So while Elder Assay’s quote may not be “doctrine,” it’s also not a fringe or minority view of the powers that be.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

First, individuals, even individual leaders at the highest level, have different opinions about everything. This is a good example .

This is what I don’t understand! If these “leaders” are divinely inspired by the one and only God, why are they giving different opinions/views? To me, it’s proof that they are just human themselves. However, I find it scary that they tell people to obey and give them money because they are conduits of the Lord.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

This is what I don’t understand! If these “leaders” are divinely inspired by the one and only God, why are they giving different opinions/views?

Because they are people, not robots, and God isn’t a puppet master – and he works with what he has (which, to echo the statement in this last General Conference, must be extremely frustrating to him)? I know it is scary or frustrating to many people, but the alternative scares me MUCH more.

Quote:

To me, it’s proof that they are just human themselves.

Yup. I don’t have a problem with that – and, again, the alternative scares me more.

Quote:

However, I find it scary that they tell people to obey and give them money because they are conduits of the Lord.

Two things:

1) They tell people to obey God. I have no problem with that, as long as they sincerely believe what they teach.

2) They aren’t telling people to “give them money” in the classic sense of what that usually means. I understand the issue of tithing and offerings, so don’t take that as some kind of naive statement. What I mean is that anyone who believes in their cause, no matter what it is, tells other people to give money (and, just as importantly, time) to support that cause – religious, political, educational, occupational, etc. The believed connection to deity is only one manifestation of that. If someone doesn’t agree, or if the benefits of paying don’t outweigh the cost, they can refuse to pay. The majority of baptized members take that route, even many fully active ones. They don’t pay. Simple. Not always easy, but simple.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

He was asked only one question by President Harold B. Lee: “Do you wear the garments properly?” to which he answered in the affirmative. President Lee wasn’t going to ask him about his worthiness. President Lee replied that he didn’t need to, for he had learned from experience that how one wears the garment is the expression of how the individual feels about the Church and everything that relates to it. It is a measure of one’s worthiness and devotion to the gospel.

The question is what is meant by “properly”. Does it mean the garment is clean and mended and not left on the floor? Does it mean that it’s worn at all times with minimal times out for sex or bathing? When you’re asked a question like that the tendency in a situation where black and white rules are welcome is to assume the strictest interpretation. That way you can try and be on the same level as the person asking.

But what does wearing the garment technically “properly” have to do with what sort of a person you are. The first patient I saw as an intern was wearing garments so I skipped the WoW questions when I took his history. The first question his family doc asked when he came in the room was if he was still drinking beer. I have an acquaintance who lost his testimony as a missionary over 60 years ago but still wears garments and is by all accounts a better Christian than most people I know.

As a nudist/naturist there are times that I chose to not wear garments and that includes sleeping, swimming or catching some rays if I’m in an appropriate place. I I intend to wear them “throughout my life” per the instructions in the temple and my recommend is still current. I just hope that come judgement I’ll be held to account more for how I treated my neighbor and less for how and when I wore my underwear.

[Author]

Posts