- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Your delima is causing you emotional discomfort that you don’t need as it did with me for some time. “Agency” is too often used in the church to denote freedom to choose what is not right. I believe agency is also used to choose what IS right, or best for you, even if it goes against common social beliefs. That could be a whole other thread. My wife is similar to your husband in that there is no room for questioning, validating or self reasoning in her world concerning church issues. She knows nothing except what she reads and what she is taught, similar to the majority and that’s OK unless you have a curious and probing personality. We are not all the same sheepole. Before I was endowed it really bothered me and still does that she has to wear garments to bed all night every night. It creates some real problems for being spontaneous. Even if you want to cuddle there is a protective barrier between you and spouse. As far as wearing my garments ALL the time, there are some days when my skin just needs a break. It is refreshing and healthy to let air flow under a loose shirt on a warm day. I was worried about the judgement I would receive from my wife when she would see that I didn’t wear garments for the day but I was prepared for a short discussion and my reasons couldn’t be disputed. There were some comments at first but they have gone away. A spouse is not an interviewer. I exercise a lot and I feel it is not appropriate to be wearing garments when perspiring profusely and that includes hiking or even taking long brisk walks on hot days. I even work in the yard with my shirt off
:silent: . These are my own personnel limits and I am prepared to discuss them with wife or any leaders except they are personnel and I have the right to keep it that way. In other words I have limits on my discussions too.My belief is that garments are symbolic. Even the markings are symbolic and a reminder of sacred covenants. Not wearing every minute of every day does not diminish my spiritually or protection. Over time maybe since it would be disobedient and violating a covenant and eventually I would not feel the reminder. But it’s like keeping a prayer in your heart, it doesn’t go away just because you forget or neglect to pray or read you scriptures one morning. You get right back to it and stay on course.
This was kind of a long winded reply and more of an opportunity to get off my chest my own personnel opinion. I have only recently come to these understandings and it has really set me free. I am using my agency for my own good. Hope this helps in some way.
ShipwreckLo wrote:I feel like I’ve lost my agency to decide what to wear and that violates the very premise of God’s plan…for us to choose for ourselves. If the Church thinks that Heavenly Father is concerned with my underwear, then we are doing it wrong.
I agree ShipwreckLo…I think Heavenly Father hardly cares what kind of underwear we wear. They tell us “the wearing of Gs is an outward expression of your inner devotion to God”. I have come to believe TGs have been/are used as a behavior control and screening measure by the church, designed to keep temple admission exclusive. Club membership becomes more desirable when membership is extended to only a select (worthy) few. Remember how special you felt as a kid when you were finally found worthy and admitted into the older kid’s “club”…this same practice applies to temple admission requirements. Other enduring examples of clubs: exclusive Golf and Country Clubs, Free Masons, Sororities and Fraternities, etc….all simply clubs you have to pay, earn, and/or prove yourself worthy for admission.
GITO (Garments in Temple ONLY) is destined to fail, because this would remove an easily detected club membership requirement.
Kipper wrote:“Agency” is too often used in the church to denote freedom to choose what is not right. I believe agency is also used to choose what IS right, or best for you, even if it goes against common social beliefs.
Words of wisdom indeed!
I love the symbolism of the garment and simply wish, in this case, the temple wording ( wear throughout life and not defile) and the handbook instruction about who gets to determine how it is worn ( each individual member) was followed – meaning I believe in teaching a principle and allowing people to govern themselves. What does “defile” mean in this context, Ray? I take it something spiritual. I like that it isn’t defined or explained, Sam. That makes it appropriate for each person to define it in whatever way makes sense to him or her. It’s when people try to come up with the one true, universal meaning that things get all wonky.
Seriously I don’t understand it. How do other people interpret it? “defile” = “to make foul, dirty, or unclean; pollute; taint; debase;” “to violate the chastity of;” “to make impure for ceremonial use; desecrate;” “to sully” Spiritually / symbolically, I interpret it to mean that we commit not to do things that would be an offense to the idea of wearing something that symbolizes the priesthood with which we are endowed in the temple. That generally is discussed in terms of sin, but I like to think of it more expansively than that.
Physically / literally, I also interpret it to include treating it just like a regular old pair of underwear – like leaving it lying on the floor for a long period of time while it gets ripe and nasty.
It’s that second interpretation that causes me to be totally fine with wearing it over regular underwear – or not wearing it while doing things that cause heavy sweating (like yard work, ironically) or the likelihood of extreme wear and tear – or anything else that a person sees as making it foul, dirty or unclean.
I am always surprised when I hear someone talk about wearing g’s during intimate situations. I consider sex a sporting event that requires the appropriate apparel for the sport — such as good lingerie. Also .. I think God cares more about our kindness and compassion than he cares about our underwear.
It’s slightly annoying to hear garments referred to as underwear so often. If that is truly how garments are perceived then something basic is missing. Amen, ap and kipper. Yeah, I know the general meaning, just couldn’t get the specific meaning. Quote:It’s slightly annoying to hear garments referred to as underwear so often.
So, what are they, then? I was told to wear them “next to the skin.” Yes, ladies, a mere 7 months ago I was endowed and given instruction to wear my bra OVER my garments. They are therefore, my “underwear.” It follows, that the Church is somehow concerned with my underwear, and it is enraging.
ShipwreckLo, fwiw, that instruction is not the default standard anymore. It’s a good example of why it takes so long to change some things: older members hang on to how they viewed things / were instructed when they were young – and, sometimes, that means they are passing on practices and policies from 50-60 years ago. Enraging? That is something you need to address. Frustrating? Understandable. Understandable, in historical context? Yes. It’s no different, in theory, than any other people wearing something to remind them of their religious commitments – and LOTS of people do that, including mainstream Christians who wear necklace crosses. Absolutely, there is a practical difference – but, seriously, if the concept is “enraging” (causing rage), it is from a more fundamental issue of what you see as control mechanisms, not the fact that the garment is worn under your clothing and/or like underwear.
You have multiple “solutions” – the easiest of which is to wear the garment over regular underwear. What you decide is up to you, but this is a great example of becoming an “agent unto yourself” to “act and not be acted upon”, as the Book of Mormon says. This one is within your power to change and control without having to go to great lengths.
Yes. Enraging. I am extremely anxiety-ridden, and OCD, and have previously spent hours upon hours making sure my clothing doesn’t touch anything I don’t want it to and doesn’t make me feel claustrophobic. These thing seem like an over-exaggeration for “normal” folks. And truthfully the gospel has helped me with some things a great deal, and I’m very grateful. It has allowed me a sense that everything is okay. But this is one area that has consumed me for the worse. The idea that I have been instructed to wear something completely uncomfortable and touches my armpits all day every day is compounding my anxiety to the point where I feel angry about it. Wearing the garment over regular underwear is only a solution for developing yeast infections and rashes. Just sayin!
Getting back to what drove my original post…My husband is the kind of guy who finds these psychological things to be almost imaginary, and questioning church teachings, whether they be the official standard or not, is a no-no in my home. I have no idea how to approach him, or if I should just stop wearing them except on sundays/temple days, and hope he doesn’t ever say anything…that feels dishonest, but I’m not super confrontational.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.