- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Cadence wrote:
Garments are just a control mechanism in the church.
For some, this may be – I do think there are some leaders and some members who truly view them this way. I suspect that’s true of individuals who themselves struggle with certain areas of self-discipline. They project that weakness on to others, and they want to exert control over a realm of like that they feel very out of control in. But I think that’s a really broad brush to paint with. Some people have OCD. Some people lack self-awareness. There’s more to garments than just being a control mechanism.
Quote:Like the Word of Wisdom it is just an outward sign of your obedience to the church.
Again, the word “just” is where you lose me on this statement. For some, I agree, this is probably true, but definitely not for all.
Quote:Personally I think they have nothing to do with spirituality and a lot to do with superstition.
I agree some members view them very superstitiously, including some members of my own family, mostly older generations. People are superstitious all over. But I think there can be value in the garments that is not tied to superstition.
Quote:I also agree they have done much damage to the intimacy of couples in the church.
I do feel they are damaging to too many women’s self-esteem and sense of personal attractiveness to be good on the whole. However, I am more concerned about other issues that reduce intimacy, such as the notion that anyone worthy is a desirable marriage partner, even without knowing very well the character of the person or their likes, dislikes, sense of humor, etc. We are still selling an economic model of marriage when the world has moved on to better versions.
Quote:I wore them for over 30 years. Then one day I said enough and put them in a drawer.
For some people, this may be the right choice. That’s up to the individual. For others, they can be a touchstone to the divine, a daily mundane reminder of our potential, or a comfort to us.
Quote:LIfe is much much better without them. In fact I refuse to put them on at anytime. I will not be forced into irrational behavior.
Well, again, good for you. I simply disagree that it’s always irrational to choose to wear them.
Garments can be boiled down to two things in my opinion.First there is the spiritual purpose of garments which we have been told is an outward sign of our temple covenants, then there is the church trying to control body modesty through garments. As others have stated garments can be a spiritual help for those that benefit from a constant reminder or cherish the symbolism. I am very happy for them, however there are many, many people, especially women for whom there is no spiritual purpose other than blind obedience. For those that fall into the second group garments actually become a stumbling block for feeling the spirit, can increase body image issues and becomes one more way women in particular are judged.
I wish that garments were left for the individual to decide how and when to wear however that will never be the case due to the second point of garments, the church’s control of body modesty. If it is the symbols that are the important part, why can we not stamp them into the inside of our clothes, or have garments be a simple tank top with the symbols? No, then the church could not be in control of what people wear and lets be honest here, it wants to control what WOMEN wear. It goes back to the thread on modesty, the church wants to control what women wear in order to help men and promote chastity for all. As already discussed and agreed upon there is a responsibility of both parties when it comes to modest dress.
The church though uses garments as a way to set/control were that line will be. I think that is why so many women have such a hard time with garments, the church ends up equating spirituality with how a woman’s body is presented and therefore the church needs to control women yet again. It is infuriating for many to be held responsible not only for their individual spirituality but also for that of others. The fact is that men have no idea or simply do not care how uncomfortable, unhygienic, and potentially emotionally damaging garments can be for many, many women. I can understand why Candence feels that garments only purpose is to control. Again there are many that have no issue with garments and gain great spiritual comfort form them. I simply wish that we could be honest about garments two fold purpose and how they can actually cause great personal damage.
That is a very good point. Old-Timer wrote:I don’t think that’s a counter to my comment, cwald – since I said explicitly that I respect walking away from something when there is no meaning left in it.
I’m just saying garments have great symbolic meaning for many, many people and are not nothing more than a control issue. I respect you and Cadence, but I think Cadence’s comment is a good example of the type of black-and-white statement both of you tend to abhor and reject when it comes from a more traditional member.
It’s really easy to see when others do or say something we don’t like; it’s a bit harder to see when we do or say the exact same thing in nature.
in this case i agree with Ray… wearing the garment is a personal matter, and if i value the symbolism, then it helps my spirituality.whe i started my own company years ago, i found it difficult to get motivated working by myself. so, i asked another guy to share my office, just so we could have a little companionship. i wS still not motivated. he told me to put on a suit, because when you wear the uniform, you tend to act the part. it really worked for me at the time.
today, i never wear a suit and tie if i can possibly avoid it, and my company (no longer my own) has a formal dress standard requiring it. meh! i won’t be pushed into anything. but if i willing choose to wear the uniform, then it no longer controls me.
i have known sikhs and orthodox jews who wear sacred underwear. If they choose to wear their symbols of faith, it isn’t a control system, but a constant reminder of who they are and what they value. not everyone does, but it is a personal choice.
maybe we should answer the bishop “i won’t ask about your underwear if you don’t ask about mine…” i don’t think it appropriate to ask about the garment, because the way it is asked, it is made into a formal “covenant”, and it is not. so, rather than answering with a rationalization, i feel it important to answer that i keep the covenants i made in the temple.
It’s making me sad as much as angry. There are good aspects to wearing garments, but the church does want to control what women wear. It is becoming an obsession. And I am even sadder and angrier at the women who sell us out, who cluck their tongues and generate infinitely long lists of what girls can and cannot wear. Modesty grows OUT of something within. It’s not pounded in from the outside. InquiringMind wrote: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.
I have had 4 torn ACLs including one while serving as a Bishop(3 left knee, 1 right knee). I am grateful for the Garment. Not because it is magical and protects me from Physical harm. But because it reminds me of what I have promised God and protects me from spiritual harm.
Again, as with other things, perhaps our understanding is not rooted in Doctrine but rather in urban legend and faith promoting stories
Ann…I agree that women can treat other women badly when it comes to garments and modesty. I’m not sure why that is, another way to judge you are better? Fear that you may lose your husband? Or perhaps fear of promiscuity and unwanted attention? I think that the symbolism and spiritual reminder can be very helpful to some people. It can be very damaging to others. I don’t think things will change though, people seem to be getting more extreme in their lists of what is not modest. I loved your point that true modesty comes from within not by force. The bickering and hairsplitting about dress codes, which everyone likes to call “modesty,” is ridiculous. The more dress codes we write, and the more unwritten ones we impose on each other with gossip and judgment, the further I think we get from the goal of men and women who respect each other and the covenants we make. It feels unseemly for an organization with as grand a purpose as the church’s to be micro-managing such a personal chore as getting dressed. I think it’s especially detrimental to girls who are already reduced to the sum of their parts by much of mainstream culture and are coming to church, to their meetings, to their leaders and parents for respite. There is something about this that I think diminishes us as a people and takes the focus off teachings and ideas that foster the undefinable and valuable modesty we need. The comments after a September 27, 2012, post at By Common Consent are interesting, particularly if the meetings/discussions/voting by members of the Quorum of the 12 actually happened. The unfortunate/funny title of the post is “I Do So Wear Underpants,” which uses Ann Romney’s recent TV appearance as a springboard. Two or three comments that I wish EVERYONE could read follow the post. There isn’t tons. Just check it out. Wow If true that only 2 votes are the cause of all my discomfort it’s pretty sad. I have also seen pictures of dances in the 50s at byu in which the women had on modest sleevless dresses, that changed after a talk by kimbal it seems. Dax wrote:Wow If true that only 2 votes are the cause of all my discomfort it’s pretty sad. I have also seen pictures of dances in the 50s at byu in which the women had on modest sleevless dresses, that changed after a talk by kimbal it seems.
It is sad.
I think the church will eventually evolve out of this pharasacial apostasy cycle we are in…but I’m afraid it will be much much too late for me.
Chad Waldron
Bend Oregon Stake
Yes, The Wilkinson center used to have pictures of past homecoming queens, they all had sleeveless dresses up through the 60’s. I don’t know if they still display them or not. Quote:Cadence wrote:Garments are just a control mechanism in the church.
I don’t think it is the garment so much themselves as the whole temple recommend process. Especially the frequent adendums to the question about garments.
Quote:Ann…I agree that women can treat other women badly when it comes to garments and modesty. I’m not sure why that is, another way to judge you are better? Fear that you may lose your husband?
People who resent their own restrictive choices police the actions of others to ensure they don’t cross the line. In short, misery loves company.
I certainly grew up with a paranoid attitude toward wearing G’s in a small Mormon community in Idaho, and that was enforced by 4 years at BYU. But when I had my crisis of faith, I quickly dumped them. Now that I live in the “mission field”, and wear them, I exercise much more flexibility and so far have not had any negative comments. Three examples help lighten my attitude toward them. I jog, and whenever weather allows I do it shirtless. Several members have seen me, but while they notice, they never have said a thing. When my wife had knee surgery, for several weeks she did not wear G’s because the fabric rubbing on the suchers was simply a no go. Several members saw her that way and never asked for an explanation. A good friend of mine who has been a regional authority, bishop, and high councilman many times over is an avid jogger. He tells the story of a member who tried calling him to repentance for his “nakedness” and he simply told her to mind her own knitting, smiled and waved good by.
Well, I had a serious car crash earlier this year, wearing garments. I don’t know if I came out unscathed due to the TGs or not! Do I wear them all the time? If I’m honest, no. I try to wear them to church and the temple, but otherwise, it’s come and go. I don’t like the fact they’re white. They get dirty really easy, which is horrible. I dyed mine blue by mistake the first time I got them. In some ways I don’t have a huge problem wearing them, because I’ve often tried to dress “modestly”, not from any religious motive, but because I don’t like showing my body off anyway. I have never enjoyed wearing swimwear and hardly ever wear shorts.
Do they protect me? No idea. Are they blatantly masonic? Yes. That makes them uncomfortable, and I don’t like showing my friends.
I do, however, take mine to the laundrette. I’ve cut the labels off. Few people round here would know what they are.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.