- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My daughter asked specifically when she went through the temple for the first time about two years ago in an area not near Roy’s (against my advice, but I’m used to that 
Old-Timer wrote:My daughter asked specifically when she went through the temple for the first time about two years ago in an area not near Roy’s (against my advice, but I’m used to that
This is true church-wide now. Unfortunately, women who went through the temple years ago are not brought up to speed on this. I wouldn’t have known if I didn’t work in the temple.
Quote:My daughter asked specifically when she went through the temple for the first time about two years ago in an area not near Roy’s (against my advice, but I’m used to that
I specifically asked the question 7 months ago, and was told the bra should go over, and that the garment should be the closest thing to the skin.
Quote:This is true church-wide now.
False – See above.
All that being said, I think it is ridiculous to expect women to embed scratchy symbols into their, ahem, sensitive parts. There are some weeks where I can barely wear clothes, let alone dig embroidering into myself. No thank you.
“False” No, not false. That is the official, church-wide policy now (it’s up to the individual), but some temple workers still repeat the old policy. That happens with lots of things, inside and outside the LDS Church. (continuing old practices / policies after new ones have been initiated) It’s unfortunate, but it’s unavoidable, given our human inclination to hold onto what we learned and resist change.
As I said in the other current thread, this is one thing (not wearing the garment beneath regular underwear) people can change without being in opposition to current policy. The current policy is that each member can determine exactly how s/he wears the garment, as long as it is worn “throughout your life” and in a way that does not “defile” it.
ShipwreckLo does have a point. I’m sure some still teach that it should be next to your skin and daughters are recieving hand-me-down instruction from their mothers etc. DW knows that it is up to her but she still wears it under her bra as was the norm in her formative household.
Perhaps for some women telling them they have a choice in how they wear their garment is like telling them that they have a choice to wear pants to church on Sunday. Not stricly prohibited but most make the “better” choice of keeping it close to the skin.
I agree, Roy – but it’s important to understand the official policy and not feel like wearing it one way (in this case, as the bottom layer) is the one, true, commanded, no-other-option-allowed way. Understanding the official current policy is the difference between having no “legitimate” choice and being free to choose (even if the choice is the “traditional” way) – and that difference makes all the difference. I know you know that, but it’s important to say it clearly in a forum like this.
🙂 Kinda harsh to come down on someone like that over what I see as being largely semantics. It may be a church-wide policy but it obviously isn’t a church-wide teaching; otherwise how would you account for their experience? Sure discrepancies like this are going to crop up all the time, you stated some reasons. If someone going through the temple for the first time has a question a temple worker’s voice becomes the voice of authority on the subject, right or wrong with respect to church policy. So let’s open this up… is any church policy applied evenly church-wide? I guess not.
Old-Timer wrote:I agree, Roy – but it’s important to understand the official policy and not feel like wearing it one way (in this case, as the bottom layer) is the one, true, commanded, no-other-option-allowed way.
I guess the issue is that it’s often taught this way. God is exact, obedience is exact, this is exactly the acceptable way. There was a thread on this recently. Everyone is different. I know that when I was more orthodox there simply wasn’t any room for personal interpretation. If I asked a temple worker I would make the assumption that they knew the correct way to wear the garment and I wouldn’t have thought much to spend who knows how long hunting down the official policy… which is hard enough post-internet.
Again, I agree completely with everything you just said, nibbler – and I wasn’t “coming down on” ShipwreckLo in anything I wrote. I was making a very specific point, and it’s an important one: The official policy of the Church right now is that each individual, ultimately, is responsible for how s/he wears the garment – and that is church-wide. It’s not taught that way by every member, but it is the official policy. Saying it’s the church-wide policy is not “false”; it is true. It’s just that, like so many things in all aspects of life, official policy isn’t understood and taught by everyone.
Quote:that doesn’t invalidate ShipwreckLo’s experience.
Absolutely.
It is a real experience, so there is NO invalidating it.However, it wasn’t in line with the official policy – and, in this forum, since we are aware of the official policy, it is critical to frame experiences like that in terms of the official policy. The temple worker who told ShipwreckLo that was wrong; she misrepresented the official policy. That simple fact can change the discussion and future in important ways. What I’m saying is that, in this case, for people who participate here and, therefore, have access to what the official policy is, there are options other than wearing the garment in the traditional, orthodox way – and it is critical to recognize and accept that in order to begin to come to a degree of peace concerning this issue.
Finally, there is a huge difference between being “enraged” and being frustrated or upset. IF someone really is enraged over this issue, it is symptomatic of something else (generally, issues of feeling controlled) and not just an issue of “underwear”. It’s really important to tackle that underlying issue and begin to take control of one’s own faith; otherwise, even if the garment itself is reconciled in some way, the manifestation of the issue (rage, in this case) will continue over something else.
I agree Nibbler. I agree Ray.
I have benefitted from this discussion. Thank you!
I would like to add to the discussion of materials and how they perform particularly well in hot and humid condition. I backpack several times a year, going into wilderness areas for 2-7 days at a time. We are away from any outside services and emergency help during the backpack trip. Temperatures can range from 15 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, wind rain, snow as well as blistering heat are always a possibility. A fantastic fabric I have found is merino wool. Merino wool has the advantage of rapidly transporting moisture outward from your skin. In hot and/or humid environments I may feel slightly damp, but never wet. It has the added advantage of not retaining body odors.
Backpackers use it as a base layer against the skin, with outer garments like polypropylene, and/or fleece, down, for warmth and gortex for rain and wind protection. It’s not uncommon to climb up a hill sweating all the way, and when you reach the pass a raging wind 20-40 degrees cooler hits you. Such an arrangement adds a significant safety margin to backpacking that could easily prevent hypothermia and worse. This is one situation where G’s don’t belong IMO.
I don’t know about current policy, but I believe in the past the Church would allow people to make their own, as long as they met the Church standard. Perhaps some creative souls could add the appropriate markings to such underwear and solve their warm weather problems.
The only downside with merino wool is that it is a bit pricy for everyday underwear, and it has a tendency to snag easily. If you could find some with a synthetic blend that might solve the snagging. Also I have not seen merino wool in white.
:problem: You can Google Marino wool for more info.
I wasn’t able to read all the above posts but I will say one simple thing: If Joseph Smith and Hyrum took off their garments before going to Carthage Jail because “it is hot in the summer” according to John Taylor, that is all I need to know to determine when I feel it’s ok to wear or remove them.
foodoctor33 wrote:I wasn’t able to read all the above posts but I will say one simple thing:
If Joseph Smith and Hyrum took off their garments before going to Carthage Jail because “it is hot in the summer” according to John Taylor, that is all I need to know to determine when I feel it’s ok to wear or remove them.
Touche! It is little nuggets of information like that the church wish would stay buried…but those pesky journal entries just keep popping up.
🙂 foodoctor33 wrote:I wasn’t able to read all the above posts but I will say one simple thing:
If Joseph Smith and Hyrum took off their garments before going to Carthage Jail because “it is hot in the summer” according to John Taylor, that is all I need to know to determine when I feel it’s ok to wear or remove them.
Interesting. Source?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just a quick comment about how “official” what we’re told in the temple is, my mother (who would have received her endowment in roughly 1949) once told me that when she first went through the temple, she was given the following instructions: “And if you want to wear something sleeveless, just tie the little cap sleeve back with a pretty little white ribbon.” Now I’ve never heard anything remotely resembling that from anybody else, but I do know my mother well enough to know that this is what she was actually told. She didn’t make it up. When I was engaged to my husband and preparing to go to the temple for the first time (probably in about 1970), I was having a conversation about temple garments with my super-pious, holier-than-thou, self-righteous future sister-in-law. I told her what my mother had told me, and she was horrified. “Oh my dear,” she said (condescendingly as all get out), “I know you love your mother and are very close to her. But you really do need to talk to someone who knows. I’d suggest you have a little chat about this with your Relief Society president.” “Sounds good to me,” I said. “That’s my mother.” She shut up and never mentioned garments to me again.
😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: Thanks for sharing that, Katzpur.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.