- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This might give you some additional information. http://www.ldssdf.org/v2/default.aspx?g=topics&f=6 GBSmith wrote:This might give you some additional information.
http://www.ldssdf.org/v2/default.aspx?g=topics&f=6 Great info GBSmith! Particularly the unofficial history of the garment and the following statement:
Quote:President Hinckley was once quoted as saying essentially that temple workers have made up more doctrine about the temple than the Lord has ever revealed. The same can probably be said for Mormon cultural and folk beliefs about the temple garment.
Quote:It’s like protection from me unless I want to make an appointment for intimacy.
Unfortunately, I believe they are a barrier to intimacy for many, based on stories I’ve heard. Not everyone feels that way. We called them “passion killers” at BYU, which may be intentional among singletons! I find them comfortable enough now, but not for exercise, doctors office, etc.
I realize things I expressed may sound nonsense but I cannot make it more clear without revealing more personal information to make the big picture more clearer. 
I’m saved! The bishop wants us to use the new book instead of the usual D&C manual!
I forgot to update about my conversation with my mother about the garments. She opened up and shared her experiences she had that led her to stop practicing Mormon. She said for me to do whatever it take for me to feel happy and beautiful. She’s a sweetheart. It was a positive conversation. My grandma will find out sooner or later when I go home. My mom tells me my grandma has not always been an angel so she shouldn’t be judging me.
Indeed, I can imagine that it is a intimacy killer, having to set an appointment. Not cool.
I never saw them as passion killers. My wife (not active) now wears PJs to bed instead, there’s more to them than the TGs. I’m not sure why anyone has to get up out of bed to take either outfit off. If we’re fully dressed and not in bed there’s no barrier, so why does underwear (or PJs or a nightdress) in a bed become a barrier? Having said that, the ‘false doctrine’ from temple workers is a problem. There are some women who refuse to wear a bra under the top and instead wear it over the top (which must be very uncomfortable) simply because some old biddy went beyond the authority of her role during the first temple visit.
To be honest, I’d really be fine if they got rid of them entirely. I’ve never really seen the value of them.
mackay11 wrote:I never saw them as passion killers. My wife (not active) now wears PJs to bed instead, there’s more to them than the TGs. I’m not sure why anyone has to get up out of bed to take either outfit off. If we’re fully dressed and not in bed there’s no barrier, so why does underwear (or PJs or a nightdress) in a bed become a barrier?
Having said that, the ‘false doctrine’ from temple workers is a problem. There are some women who refuse to wear a bra under the top and instead wear it over the top (which must be very uncomfortable) simply because some old biddy went beyond the authority of her role during the first temple visit.
To be honest, I’d really be fine if they got rid of them entirely. I’ve never really seen the value of them.
The “passion killer” comes from the commandment to wear them both night and day.
Garments and/or pjs should not be worn to bed, ever, IMO.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:The “passion killer” comes from the commandment to wear them both night and day.
I feel there is something to that. It doesn’t strike me fully as a commandment. It’s like I’m being told what to do, think and feel and I’m being watched. And they do mean all the time, within reason, I was told specifically even when doing yard work. It just seams silly to me I guess because I believe it is literally symbolic and the point is to not let your commitment, promises and holy space wane wherever you are. Is there really something wrong about working up a sweat in my yard or garden and let the warm sun and wind touch my skin? A level headed friend told me that whenever G’s would cause conversation they could be left at home.
I need to read the information article on page 2.
Oh, and RayD, I really appreciate your comments.
GBSmith wrote:This might give you some additional information.
http://www.ldssdf.org/v2/default.aspx?g=topics&f=6 I can’t get to the site from work for obvious reasons but that’s OK. There are a few things I just don’t get as a movement and this is one. Any other way I could get to the article?
There’s a lot of information and opinion on http://www.ldssdc.info and in the archives onhttp://www.ldssdc.org . The newhttp://www.ldssdc.org/v2/ has the information I linked earlier. No nudity on any of the sites. The worst temple worker advice I ever heard was given back in the 70s to an elderly patient of mine that remarried. He was told that he and his wife should wear the old long tie front garments so they could be intimate without taking them off. On the upside I’ve had patients tell me that they were advised that it didn’t matter if bras were worn over or under the garment.Kipper wrote:GBSmith wrote:This might give you some additional information.
http://www.ldssdf.org/v2/default.aspx?g=topics&f=6 I can’t get to the site from work for obvious reasons but that’s OK. There are a few things I just don’t get as a movement and this is one. Any other way I could get to the article?
Sorry, should be
http://www.ldssdc.org/v2/default.aspx?g=topics&f=6
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.