- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Since the phrase “against the power of the destroyer” is used in regards to the protective power of the garment, the garment’s protective powers are put in the metaphysical realm rather than the physical realm. In any case I suppose that it’s true that no explicit promises of physical protection are offered for wearing the garment, though it is easy to be led to believe such ideas by stories one hears, such as one TV program I watched where Bill Marriott explained that he was exposed to open flames and his cloths (or skin, I don’t remember) were burned all the way up to his garment line, and the flames did not pass his garment line. Also, there’s the time that Paul H. Dunn claimed that his garments protected him from machine guns bullets, though this story is known to be fictitious. I suppose that I can take responsibility for believing folk doctrine.
To support InquiringMind here… I distinctly remember when I was a teenager in Sunday school many lessons on garments. One story I was told was about a guy who was in a fire who was horribly burned everywhere except the garments were. (Probably an evolved urban legend based on the Mariott story. Still taught as gospel nonetheless.) One about a man being shot without a scratch. Another who fell into the sea and sharks ate his entire body except for where the garments were. I thought at the time that that didn’t make sense. First, that would mean that no active Mormon should have ever died from 95% of the accidents that can kill people, also murder. Even the profit Joseph himself would not have been shot to death. But then I also felt guilty because I must not have enough faith and I promptly swept the idea to the back of my mind and tried to not think about it. Point is though it was a very prominant teaching being circulated in our church, at least in the 80s and early 90s. I went through the temple for the first time in 1992. I do SWEAR that during the endowment I was told that they were intended to be a protection both spiritually AND physically. Again, I felt uncomfortable but tried to live in denial. Since then even five years later in other sessions I thought that perhaps they had dropped that wording from the ceremony since I don’t recall hearing it again. But then again I thought maybe I was crazy and that I didn’t really hear it the first time- that I was just superimposing ideas I had been taught before in church as that moment. Does anyone know? Was that ever the wording? Did they drop it? Or am I nuts?? Don’t worry about offending me. I am OK with being nuts.
You’re not nuts – just misremembering. 🙂 It happens all the time.Quote:I feel that garments were mostly intended to inhibit sexuality in a sex phobic culture
I’m sure there are some who have perpetuated garment-wearing for this reason. From a practical perspective, it would be difficult to commit adultery (unless your lover was also a garment-wearer) without thinking seriously about your covenants if you were wearing the garment.
But I agree with Brian on both the recommendation for the Mysteries of Godliness and also that the garment was likely not intended for women originally, and was designated to show who was in the polygamy club and who was not. Having said that, there is something about women wearing it that denotes equality for the sexes, even if it didn’t originate that way, and even if the garment itself is obviously not well designed for women even today.
I do wear them, and I’m comfortable with them at this point, but I would never fault any woman for not liking to wear them, and I also think they exacerbate female body issues. For me they are comfortable in the way that church attendance is. It’s a subconscious reminder to me that I’m Mormon. When I don’t wear them, I often like putting them back on just because it feels natural to me now.
My guess is that some of the stories of people being unharmed when they should have been mangled are actually true, but the garments were not the cause of the person’s escape from harm. For every story about garments protecting someone physically, there are probably ten thousand stories where a person was injured or killed while wearing garments, but those aren’t the stories that get told in Sunday School. Since a belief that God always answers prayers often comes from “remembering the hits and forgetting the misses,” a belief in the physical protective power of garments comes from re-telling the few stories where people escaped harm while wearing garments and not telling any stories about people who were injured or killed while wearing garments. I am satisfied with that explanation 🙂 I remember the president of the old mission home in SLC back in 1964 telling us missionaries if garments were supposed to physically protect us, they’d cover our hands, feet and head. They’re not an inhibitor of sexual activity any more than a pair of long johns is, which is what they started out being. I do remember hearing stories in the 60’s and 70’s that there were still people that left them on for sex. Anyway, they’re just underwear, nothing magic about them. As an aside the last time I did washings and anointings I paid close attention and realized that there wasn’t a covenant to wear them. Just the instruction to “wear them throughout your life”. Not quite sure where the day and night question in the TR interview came from.
Just a funny note on the “garments as physical protection” note. My mom once told me about a church member who had drowned in a nearby river. His corpse took a while to recover, and when they did, the parts of his body covered by the garment hadn’t been eaten by fish, so she considered this “protection.” My conclusion was that they are not edible or at least not delicious to fish. Certain commandments are unverifiable within a certain range — tithing, garments, matters of belief, faith, and even the word of wisdom, and the TR questions rely on your own personal judgment in many respects. Coupled with honest self-introspection, we have a substantial amount of freedom in how we live our religion, I believe. Substantial. And I’m not just trying to be positive either…I’m actually believe this. Just don’t remind me of this next time I post some angst. It doesn’t always apply when I face my own problems Quote:Just don’t remind me of this next time I post some angst.
So much for my plan to bookmark that page and quote it incessantly every time you write a new post.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Just a funny note on the “garments as physical protection” note. My mom once told me about a church member who had drowned in a nearby river. His corpse took a while to recover, and when they did, the parts of his body covered by the garment hadn’t been eaten by fish, so she considered this “protection.” My conclusion was that they are not edible or at least not delicious to fish.
Being a oceanographer and marine biologist as well as a reef aquarium keeper for over 20 years I just found that funny lol.
Fish will nibble at anything if they are hungery. However very few species have any kind of teeth. It’s almost impossible for most species to get through clothing unless it’s loose and swimming inbetween the clothing and the body. Anyway, it’s a example of a belief that results and perpetuates from ignorance. People can take what they want from it if it makes them feel better. Just don’t lunge head first into a raging fire to rescue articles or people expecting protection.
there’s nothing like faith-promotin’ roomers. wayfarer wrote:there’s nothing like faith-promotin’ roomers.
room·er   [roo-mer, room-er]
noun
a person who lives in a rented room; Â lodger.
You mean a person living in a rented room promoting faith? I agree! Particualry if they pay a good rent
😆 JokeSeriously rumors should just stay rumors. As LDS people we shouldn’t promote rumors or gossip(I believe). It bears bad fruit.
hawkgrrrl wrote:My conclusion was that they are not edible or at least not delicious to fish.
Lol! Love it!Fwiw, there came a time when the garments became a symbol of loyalty to the church and pharasacial apostasy to me. They were causing me a tremendous amount of negative spiritual energy and were a huge distraction to my spiritual journey. I quit wearing them. Some might call me arrogant and prideful for what I just said, but i dont give a damn. It took awhile, but I’m comfortable with my decision, and can focus more on the gods and the true Gospel.
But, I also know and accept I will not be getting a TR anytime soon, and am relegated to a lower grade tier Mormon at this time.
Such is life. “Things without all remedy should be without regard. What is done, is done.”
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:Fwiw, there came a time when the garments became a symbol of loyalty to the church and pharasacial apostasy to me. They were causing me a tremendous amount of negative spiritual energy and were a huge distraction to my spiritual journey. I quit wearing them. Some might call me arrogant and prideful for what I just said, but i dont give a damn.
It took awhile, but I’m comfortable with my decision, and can focus more on the gods and the true Gospel.
But, I also know and accept I will not be getting a TR anytime soon, and am relegated to a lower grade tier Mormon at this time.
Such is life. “Things without all remedy should be without regard. What is done, is done.”
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
People don’t come in tiers Cwald. No matter what anyone says. This is what “love the sinner hate the sin” tells us(or at least me). I stand in opposition to the idea of tiered people that has been used to subvert or take from others those thought to be “lower tiered”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.