Garments

[Anonymous]

Oh happy happy joy joy! Lol- pardon my silliness. I have been feeling so very isolated surrounded by Utah Mormons who generally come in two varieties— Nazi Mormons and Jack Mormons. I have been feeling like a lone rebel- not knowing where I belong in the Church. I feel in my heart I am a die hard Mormon who is very strong in many areas- too strong to ever think of leaving. But such a rebel on the outside that I do not fit inside. This board has been helping me soo much I am spending hours a day just reading and writing out thoughts I knew I could never share with most anyone else. I hope I don’t make you guys sick of me. I am just finding this so therapeutic.

Garments are something I have struggled with so many years. I searched the topic here.. and yay! Many others have too. I am so happy not to be alone! And as I read I didn’t find one person condemning those who stated their issues. This is so new to me– amazingly refreshing!!!

So here is my beef— I feel that garments were mostly intended to inhibit sexuality in a sex phobic culture. I understand what the fear is. Unrestrained sexuality is like fire. It can be an amazing power for good but is also one of the most destructive forces on earth. But I think that our culture; which can be applied to not just LDS culture, but much of Christendom, and particularly the repressed historical time from which the church emerged; did not understand the psychological and emotional and therefore spiritual NEEDS of sex outside of procreation. I do not think they understood that rarely can a man and a woman have a truly bonded, healthy relationship without a healthy sexual relationship. It is not for just baby making! I think when we make our women feel less desirable and even ugly and take away their sense of sexuality they shut off that side of themselves. It causes a terrible division in a woman’s psyche that has far reaching effects. And when they shut that off it’s like a faucet. It’s off. Ain’t nobody gettin any! Every time I had to remove my G’s to get it on with my husband, I felt dirty and the visual reminded me of my mother. Instant downer. And having to put them on after? Yuck. And it really was inconvenient to have a middle-of-the-night-fun-time. How can it be wrong to sleep skin to skin with the one you love, feeling their heartbeat and being one in body all night- not just during an act of procreation? In my mind, the very first commandment and probably one of the most important is to cleave unto your spouse ABOVE ALL ELSE. Seems to me that anything that gets in the way of that is wrong. I understand the need for keeping sexuality between a husband and wife. I totally agree. But shouldn’t we really be relying on personal accountability more than special underwear? My sexual identity is a true part of me and I do not wish to bury it.

Besides they are hot and uncomfortable and particularly a problem for women because they are terrible when nursing or during a women’s monthly curse.

I realize the markings are supposed to have religious meaning and I also know that there are references in scriptures now and then to different religious garments. But yes there are also references to many other things we in the church no longer practice or believe. For the most part I believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith, but there are some that even the modern day prophet will denounce so they can’t all be right.

I find that much of what we think is part of the Gospel is really just Mormon culture and Mormon culture is very slow to change. Yes garments are one example. At one point in time it was thought that anything less than wrist length would keep us out of heaven. Really I wonder if it’s just something that was invented at the time, maybe partly inspired and maybe not. Child brides used to be thought of as an inspired idea and it wasn’t. But garments stuck and whether it ever had any real basis in scriptures or spirituality or not, it is now so ingrained it will not ever be questioned. Such was the case with blacks in the priesthood was it not? It was thought to be inspired and always done that way and it wasn’t until one of the profits thought “hey maybe I should ask God if this is really what he wants?” that it changed. What is the likelihood that many other things in the church are being done that way because it has always been done that way? Should we never question anything? Sounds very catholic to me.

So I really struggle because I really want to get back to the temple someday and I haven’t worn them in years and I don’t want to start. I want to pay tithing. It feels right. I want to attend my meetings. It feels right. I want to be honest with my fellow man. It feels right. But one of the questions of the temple interview has been “do you wear the garment day and night?” and I don’t want to. It doesn’t feel right. I have a really hard time accepting that God will keep me from heaven because I don’t wear crazy underwear. That just doesn’t feel right.

So I ask this to those with much knowledge of scriptural and church history. What is the exact doctrine that is found in ancient teachings and what is the exact official doctrine? In many ways I am trying to find the back-to-basics approach of what Jesus taught. There is so much doctrine in the church that even the church has moved away from that I think the only real authority is Christ. I recognize that there are modern profits who receive revelation to help us stay on track. I do believe though that they are men and cannot see everything through the distortion of our mortal sphere. I will consider any and all doctrinal teachings so I want to know exactly what they are. Maybe it will change my perspective and maybe it won’t but I want to know what the real teaching actual teaching is so I can consider it. I know what we are taught in church but most original references are lost. Anyone who can give me specifics here, please do!

[Anonymous]

All I can do is give my personal feelings and knowledge on this subject. I think the official interpretation is continuous wearing of garments except in circumstances where you are playing sports activities or they would be mocked by others. Historically, I don’t see much reference in the scriptures to the way we wear garments today…but I have not searched.

However if you look at the wording it says wearing them “day and night”. As garment wearing is not a public thing, one might interpret it to mean you wear them in the day for a while, and at night for a while as a remembrance of covenants — on a level of frequency that serves your conscience.

Personally, I wore them continuously for over 20 years. As someone who is shorter than most people, they were a big hassle, but I kept up with it, until one day I realized it’s not very sacred to have them hanging below your knees when you wear modest/ or even long-length shorts, for all to see if they slip down your waist even a bit. Every day, I realized I was irritated having to constantly hike them up beyond my navel to stop them from hanging below the knee. I now realize that garmets are made for the person — not the person for the garments and have made “adjustments”.

I realize that one problem people have in our uniform church is “fitting into the mold”. That is how I feel regarding garments…they are designed for the average person, and even smaller ones don’t fit me. As happiness is the object and design of our existence, I have found that having made adjustments in my garment wearing, I am much happier. MUCH happier as now garment-wearing fits my body type.

I don’t have an answer for you, but to share that I share in your angst about them, and feel something in common with “not fitting the mold” albeit for different reasons.

I like what DH Oaks said — that all the church can do is teach general principles, and that if we feel we have a personal exception, we need to work it out with the Lord. I think that applies to garments.

[Anonymous]

There is a really good thread about this in our recent archives. I’ll find it and provide a link, so you can read it. There are some really good comments, from lots of different perspectives.

Here it is:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3428&hilit=garments

[Anonymous]

I totally relate on the garment issue. You probably already know that if you read the thread that Ray linked. I do have another thought for you. Can you spiritually wear your garments day and night? If you can put on your spiritual armor, then this could work for you feeling ok about answering that question, maybe. I have two years before my next meeting. I just went through the temple and I don’t wear garments at all. If you fo,llowed that other thread you probably know that I have other reasons too, but I agree with everything you’ve said in your post. Good luck with your journey!

[Anonymous]

RagDollSallyUT wrote:

I hope I don’t make you guys sick of me. I am just finding this so therapeutic.

Nope. Won’t get sick of it. That’s the whole reason we’re here — to talk about this stuff. There are so many members who desperately need to talk about a lot of topics, but our culture too often makes them seem forbidden. They are not. We should be authentic and share what’s in our heart, and ask each other for ideas and help, and uplift each other. None of that happens when we feel we can’t share the most important things in our heart with our brothers and sisters.

RagDollSallyUT wrote:

So here is my beef— I feel that garments were mostly intended to inhibit sexuality

That is an interpretation of the reason. It certainly does cause that problem for certain people, even many people. So that aspect can be true for them, no doubt. Again, it’s important to talk about these things if we, as a religion, want to ever find ways to be better.

There are other interpretations of their purpose or benefit too. In my opinion, our view of them tells us much more about ourselves than it does about some absolute and generalized truth about “garments.” If you are interested enough in this, there are several good books that discuss their history, changes over time, and how our view of them developed to the present.

I personally have a hard time saying they mean one thing, and only have a single purpose. That reduces too much of the complexity. It may be a primary meaning someone takes from them in their own experience. That I agree with. But they don’t just have one meaning and purpose for everyone, especially throughout history.

RagDollSallyUT wrote:

I realize the markings are supposed to have religious meaning and I also know that there are references in scriptures now and then to different religious garments. But yes there are also references to many other things we in the church no longer practice or believe. For the most part I believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith, but there are some that even the modern day prophet will denounce so they can’t all be right.

There are no canonized scriptures that talk about garments directly, certainly not our contemporary version of these clothing items. Christ does not talk about them, so you can’t use that as an authoritative reference. There’s a strong LDS culture of not talking about their history or development, so that story has faded from our collective consciousness over the generations.

The history is out there though. You can follow the trail and make your own conclusions. The symbols on them have a VERY long history that precedes Mormonism and Joseph Smith. The idea of religious clothing does too. Like you noticed, our views have changed over time.

Personally, I think Joseph had a much different understanding of them than we do today. I tend to doubt he intended women to wear them, or at least didn’t think much about that when he tested this concept initially. The garments he introduced are very different in a lot of ways to what we use today. They had a different focus in meaning too. We’re a much different society and culture today (especially in regards to women, which is GOOD!). I think they should be modified to adapt to our needs, not the other way around. But I don’t have a say about it at LDS HQ, and nobody asks me 😆

RagDollSallyUT wrote:

So I really struggle because I really want to get back to the temple someday and I haven’t worn them in years and I don’t want to start. I want to pay tithing. It feels right. I want to attend my meetings. It feels right. I want to be honest with my fellow man. It feels right. But one of the questions of the temple interview has been “do you wear the garment day and night?” and I don’t want to. It doesn’t feel right. I have a really hard time accepting that God will keep me from heaven because I don’t wear crazy underwear. That just doesn’t feel right.

This is a great example of the process of owning your religious beliefs! Go with what feels important or good, especially things that are uplifting and spiritual. Try it out and test it. Does it “bring forth good fruit?” Does it make your life better? I would call that “the spirit.” Set aside the things that trouble you. Don’t let them be a distraction from the good. If they don’t seem right, don’t do them.

You are in charge now!

My recommendation: If you want to wear garments, or feel that is something to explore, then do so. Modify your practice so that it creates a GOOD in your life. Don’t worry as much about what other people are telling you has to be done. You <----> God. That’s the model. Not You <----> every human with an opinion <----> God.

RagDollSallyUT wrote:

So I ask this to those with much knowledge of scriptural and church history. What is the exact doctrine that is found in ancient teachings and what is the exact official doctrine? In many ways I am trying to find the back-to-basics approach of what Jesus taught. There is so much doctrine in the church that even the church has moved away from that I think the only real authority is Christ.

Like I said, there’s nothing in the scriptures about them. There is no record of Christ talking about them. There are not ancient teachings on them. I don’t think they are ancient. I think Joseph Smith created the idea in the 19th century. That could very well have been a revelation and inspired by God. That is a matter of faith. I think what we use today is modern, even more modern that Joseph’s 1840’s ideas. That doesn’t make it wrong or useless. They are what they are.

One of the best historical books about the development of the LDS Temple from Joseph Smith to our modern day is “The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship” by David Buerger. That’s a great place to start.

[Anonymous]

I love love love all your comments and advice. I am feeling so much more peace in my life after having found such smart, good people that I can talk to about these things that I have struggled with for so many years, always in silence since the cost of opening my mouth to anyone in the church is just too great. Sad but true. It’s kind of laughable really but when I was dating after my divorce I wrote a blog on dating the second time around in which I poked fun at the meat market. It was meant to be funny. I thought it was hilarious myself. (Yes I do laugh at my own jokes!) Anyway, some “well intentioned” ward member apparently found it and went running to the bishop and the bishop promptly called me down and chastised me because he said he thought I was being anti-family and anti-men. This is ridiculous as it was negative in no way about either, it was just a joke, and anyone who knows me knows I am VERY family centered and despite my bad experiences with men, I am a believer that there are very good and really great men out there. Whether or not I will ever have one is debatable, but the do exist. I believe! Anyway, point is if I got in trouble for THAT, I would be burned at the stake for addressing any of my real concerns with anyone in the church.

Brian Johnston wrote:

If you are interested enough in this, there are several good books that discuss their history, changes over time, and how our view of them developed to the present.

Yes! Please… any more recommendations aside from the Buerger book? I will order one today. I also believe it was HSAD who mentioned she had done alot of research and she believes we use them in ways for which they were not originally intended. (forgive me if it wasn’t— I have been reading so much!) I would be interested in any references to this research.

Brian Johnston wrote:

I personally have a hard time saying they mean one thing, and only have a single purpose. That reduces too much of the complexity.

Agreed. I over simplify.

Brian Johnston wrote:

I tend to doubt he intended women to wear them, or at least didn’t think much about that when he tested this concept initially.

I am intrigued. What makes you say this?

Brian Johnston wrote:

This is a great example of the process of owning your religious beliefs! Go with what feels important or good, especially things that are uplifting and spiritual. Try it out and test it. Does it “bring forth good fruit?” Does it make your life better? I would call that “the spirit.” Set aside the things that trouble you. Don’t let them be a distraction from the good. If they don’t seem right, don’t do them.

I love this. Thank you for the validation. I suppose the cafeteria thing will be very useful here. No one can do every thing perfect at all times. If I decide at some point to change this I can always go pick it up later right? I am totally embracing the cafeteria concept. Buffets are awesome that way. ‘Twill be my creed from this day forth! I need to cross stitch it and hang it on my wall. Oh wait, I don’t cross stitch.

My sentiments are much with HSAD. I think one of the problems for many women is that we don’t psychological compartmentalize as well as men as a general rule. They say for woman our sex starts the moment we get up and continues all day long with every issue having nothing to do with sex. It has to do with household chores and kids and whether our husbands remembers special things. We don’t switch it on and off like most men do. How we feel about ourselves sexually is an all the time thing. If we are thinking every day all day long “I am fat and no one wants me” we don’t just flip the switch and become sexual at night. We shut down over all. That’s why a man who does more for a woman to show her she is loved and wanted tends to get more at night. (As a generality. There is always exceptions.) I also believe that is many times why men sometimes complain there is such a thing called a an anti-aphrodisiac. It’s called wedding cake. It’s because men tend to quit dating their wives when they get married. Again this is a generalization and in no way am I blaming men for all sexual problems between couples. It’s just an insight into the workings of an average female mind. For men it doesn’t work that way so much. Kind of the opposite in many ways. They do have an on/off switch which is really easy to trigger to on. In fact, sometimes, the harder his day was and the worse he feels sometimes the more he needs the sexual affirmation and release.

And as women in this culture, we have an ingrained tendency to have much of our identity focused on our bodies. (Yes it is our culture- this is not a tendency seen across the board in all cultures. Maybe another reason this is more a problem for American women now that 100 years ago?) We are taught from the time we can talk that we should be so beautiful that woodland creatures flock to us when we sing. Is it so crazy to think that we find it unacceptable to add any more ugliness to our already naturally imperfect bodies that we struggle so much with accepting anyway? I will acknowledge here that yes, our society pressures men in this regard too, but it really isn’t the same pressure. How many men can you think of as characters on TV who are kinda homely and a bit fat, yet they are married to very pretty women who are way out of their league? And how many in the reverse? It’s just not the same level of pressure. And as HSAD mentioned… garments are not really considered very ugly for men. There is not a big jump from regular men’s underwear to garments. In fact, the prevailing style is boxer briefs which are pretty much identical to garments and I personally find smokin’ hot. But women’s garments look nothing like women’s underwear. Just sayin’,

[Anonymous]

RagDollSallyUT wrote:

Brian Johnston wrote:

I tend to doubt he intended women to wear them, or at least didn’t think much about that when he tested this concept initially.

I am intrigued. What makes you say this?

Joseph started a prototype “endowment” ritual in Kirtland in the early 1830’s. It was radically different and much less scripted than what we have today, but I think you can still see common elements that he kept working on. There were no women included, that I know of, at that time.

No women were included in the endowment until around 1843, some 10+ years later. This is where it begins to look something like what we have today. Garments were very different though. I can’t remember if the few endowed women wore them or not at first. I tend to doubt it. Without digging up too much more controversy for you, there are some historians who interpret the inclusion of women in 1843 as a way to help keep them silent about his experimentation with plural marriage. I personally don’t view it quite that cynical, but the timing might have encouraged him consider a broader scope of people.

The garment soon afterward was given to both sexes. But it was originally, from the 1830’s up until just before Joseph was killed, it was intended for men, IMO. That was just how Joseph was thinking about it. Including women was more of an after thought for him. That’s why I made the above observation. Disclaimer: I am not saying that was right or defending it. I’m just analyzing what I see historically and speaking plainly about what I think Joseph was thinking. I don’t know. I’m just guessing.

So the fact they STILL seem more like men’s underwear, and aren’t always very convenient for women, that all has some historical roots. We’re a VERY conservative religion. We hate change … but we need change. I don’t personally see any reason garments couldn’t be modified a lot more for women. But that’s just my opinion, and I am an avowed heretic 😆

Another reason for the male-centric nature of the endowment and garments is the connections to Freemasonry — another can of worms I’m not sure you want to dig open. It’s an open historical fact that Joseph was extremely interested in Masonry. Most male members in Nauvoo were also Masons. It was a very popular social movement for men in the 19th century. There was a lodge in Nauvoo. Freemasonry is male-only club even to this day (although there are modern permutations like Co-masonry that include women).

[Anonymous]

Read “Hey, Mormons, Garments Aren’t Secret Any More” by Robert Kirby

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/54798825-80/garments-mormons-kirby-sacred.html.csp

[Anonymous]

The temple interview asks, “Do you wear the authorized garments both day and night?”

It does not ask, “Do you wear the authorized garments all day every day and all night every night?”

That distinction I feel gives us far greater flexibility than is commonly assumed.

While the Church carefully and very consciously defines the standards for temple worthiness, It is ultimately the interviewee who is the primary judge. Additionally Apostle Paul supports this notion: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” (1 Corinthians 11:28)

[Anonymous]

Quote:

You <----> God. That’s the model. Not You <----> every human with an opinion <----> God

I think I am going to cross stitch this and put it in my house. I love it!

[Anonymous]

So great to be able to pick the brains of people with so much more knowledge than me!

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“How does the church define apostate anyway?”

I’ll open a new thread about that topic, so it won’t get lost to lurkers and readers in this thread.

People are interesting. It’s easy for some people to flirt with what they might see as apostasy as long as those around them don’t do so. Other people’s “grounding in the Gospel” allows these people to feel protected and safe in their own conflict. Take away that “support system” / “safety net” and their reactions can be . . . enlightening.

It sounds like your husband wants to be able to complain in a way that doesn’t “tempt fate” – but if you find answers for yourself that threaten his security – if it looks like you might be about to cut the string that holds his kite tethered . . .

I might be reading that completely incorrectly, knowing nothing else about him and your marriage, but it’s worth considering – NOT to keep you from figuring out your own faith but simply to help you understand the possible insecurity hiding behind his mask.

[Anonymous]

I struggle with garments for two reasons- one, the clearly Masonic markings on them, and two, the fact that they didn’t protect me when they should have. I’m a pretty athletic guy and played school-sponsored sports almost daily in junior high and high school, and during that time, I didn’t have garments (because I was not endowed) and I never had a serious injury. Then I went on my mission, and less than a month after getting to my first area, I tore my ACL playing basketball with other missionaries on P-Day. I was wearing my garments at the time of the tear and I was keeping all the mission rules. I received a priesthood blessing and was told that I would be “healed in the due time of the Lord by the doctors and nurses.” I had to go home and have knee surgery to fix the torn ACL, and then I returned to my mission.

So, for one, why didn’t the garments protect me from the serious knee injury (especially given that I do not have a history of athletic injuries)? And two, why didn’t God save me the pain of a surgery, and save the Church the expense of having to pay for part of it, and give me three more months of time saving his children, and save me the potential problems I may have with my knee later on, all of which could have been accomplished by simply healing the torn ACL with a priesthood blessing?

So I have to say that, even though garments are supposed to be a “shield and a protection,” garments do not protect people from injury, even missionaries. I still wear them at this point, but if they “don’t work,” I may change my mind in the future.

[Anonymous]

I was under the assumption that the protection was a type of spiritual protection, and that as you remembered the symbols it would help you to keep the spirit in your life. I have heard people talk about that physical protection but I thought that was Mormon folklore.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, there is NO official, explicit promise of physical protection associated with the garment anywhere in the temple – none, and it makes no sense to view them that way when so many people have been injured and/or killed while wearing them. Sure, some people believe in physical protection, but it isn’t anywhere in the actual ceremonies and covenants made.

I always have seen the promise in spiritual terms – just like sacred clothing elements in so many religious traditions throughout history. They contain reminders of covenants, which should remind of those covenants, which should function as a “shield and protection” from (spiritual) harm / (spiritually) harmful situations. In that way, they really can have the power they are said to have, but we have to give them that power. They certainly don’t have any power in and of themselves alone.

[Author]

Posts