Is the temple garment doctrine or policy?

[Anonymous]

BuffetMormon wrote:

But over the summer, we went to Disney World where it was 95 degrees and 100% humidity. The first day, my garments were drenched. It was awful.

Comments like this remind me that Joseph, Hyrum, and John Taylor were not wearing their garments in Carthage jail. There has been much speculation around why, but we know two things: it was a warm summer day, and the garments were not being worn.

[Anonymous]

And their garments were much longer and hotter than ours are. I don’t blame them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

BuffetMormon wrote:

Most of the time, I like wearing my garments. I find them comforting (in a spiritual sense).

For me, it’s “some” of the time, but I still feel drawn to wearing them.

Quote:

But sometimes I hate them……like in 100 degree heat. Sometimes I do not want to wear them.

I’ve decided that femininity and comfort are not trivial things. I don’t accept that I am wrong or vain for wanting to feel feminine, and I’m not susceptible anymore to being told that garment-wearing is a measure of my love and devotion to the Savior. It just isn’t, at least not for me. But out of love for my husband, “my people,” and my personal temple-going experience, I wear them on my terms.

I’m glad you reached a comfortable spot on the issue. :thumbup: I haven’t put in the search terms recently, but there are a lot of garment-related threads here.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

BuffetMormon wrote:

But over the summer, we went to Disney World where it was 95 degrees and 100% humidity. The first day, my garments were drenched. It was awful.

Comments like this remind me that Joseph, Hyrum, and John Taylor were not wearing their garments in Carthage jail. There has been much speculation around why, but we know two things: it was a warm summer day, and the garments were not being worn.

Garments were originally only worn in the temple and infrequently worn outside, hence their not being worn at Carthage. Since then their use and design has morphed into what we have today. Joseph F. Smith declared that their design was of divine origin and they could not be modified and only the original design was allowed in the temple. He had a sign put up in the SL Temple to that effect that Heber J. Grant had taken down and burned when he became president. And so it goes…

[Anonymous]

GBS – any references on that? Not questioning you, but I would love to have the documented version in my pocket so to speak.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I am a temple worker and love the blessings in the iniatory, even though I take them symbolically and not literally. (If they were supposed to be literal, there would be no impotence or serious digestive issues among the membership – and the actual wording is clear in that regard.)

Based on the actual temple wording, wearing the garment is doctrine (what is taught); not defiling it is doctrine; how and when to wear it (other than throughout life) is policy, and that policy has changed radically and multiple times in our history. Also, in the temple, we do not covenant to wear the garment; rather, we are promised a blessing if we do so throughout our lives and don’t defile it.

I have absolutely no problem if someone chooses not to wear it in a situation that they believe will defile it – including getting it abnormally sweaty, dirty or grungy in some way. We have explicit exceptions for things like sports for a reason; if someone applies that same general concern out of common sense for other situations, I will never criticize such a use of agency and view of not defiling it.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

GBS – any references on that? Not questioning you, but I would love to have the documented version in my pocket so to speak.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000”, Devery S. Anderson, pgs.139, 200-202 refer to JFS and HJG but I couldn’t find a reference for garments being only worn in the temple in the early days.

[Anonymous]

GB Smith, seeing how things morphed and developed as they went is helpful to put things in perspective for me. We sometimes think it has always been one way, there are no options, it is black and white. But that is not how the gospel was restored.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

GB Smith, seeing how things morphed and developed as they went is helpful to put things in perspective for me. We sometimes think it has always been one way, there are no options, it is black and white. But that is not how the gospel was restored.

Or we’re just making it up as we go.

[Anonymous]

I skimmed through the thread so I might be saying something that has already been said.

Temple marriage (sealing) is doctrine. The waiting period between civil marriage and sealing is policy.

I would have to agree that wearing the temple garment is doctrine. How and when the garment is worn could very well fall under practice. For instance you might find a temple worker telling you you have to put the right leg in first, then the left leg, then the right arm, then the left arm.

Has Holland(?) or any other general authority actually said the handbooks are doctrine or did they say the handbooks contain doctrine? If they said the handbooks are doctrine how about a verifiable source with a link.

[Anonymous]

Thoreau wrote:

Has Holland(?) or any other general authority actually said the handbooks are doctrine or did they say the handbooks contain doctrine? If they said the handbooks are doctrine how about a verifiable source with a link.

Oaks said the handbooks are doctrine during the worldwide bishopric broadcast and training about the new handbook rollout several years ago. I doubt there is a public recording of it available but that is what I thought I heard. “Handbooks are doctrine”

I remember thinking how can something be doctrine if less than 1% of the church has access to it.

[Anonymous]

“Doctrine” means “things that are taught” – NOT objective truth.

The handbook contains LOTS of policy and lots of suggestions. It contains doctrine (teachings), policy, practices, etc.

[Anonymous]

For me, the distinction between doctrine and policy doesn’t matter. Church members will be hard pressed to tell you the difference, and the church makes access to certain priviledges dependent on compliance with their rules — whether those rules are doctrine, policy, or revelation. The church also states that certain things are required, and we must go through interviews indicating we are in compliance with those rules. If we admit we are not, then we are denied access to certain priviledges.

So, the question about garments becomes whether wearing them, or not offends your conscience, and whether you want to be a temple recommend holder. That is the question you need to answer, in my view.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

I remember thinking how can something be doctrine if less than 1% of the church has access to it.

CHI2 is easily available to everyone. CHI1 is available to everyone whose actions it directs, and I’ve never had a bishop refuse to let me read any specific section that governed his side of our interaction. I have little doubt that he would let me read the whole thing if not for the simple time and need factor. (i.e. he doesn’t want his copy to not be right at hand if he needs to look something up.) He has just slid it across the desk a couple of times and let me look up the section a couple of times, so I’ve seen the full table of contents, and frankly, I’m not sure why anyone not in a calling it governs would want to read it other than to “rules lawyer” someone in one of those callings.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

“Doctrine” means “things that are taught” – NOT objective truth.

The handbook contains LOTS of policy and lots of suggestions. It contains doctrine (teachings), policy, practices, etc.

And the handbooks change.

I’m all for the definition of doctrine to be used this way. As GBSmith said earlier…

GBSmith wrote:

we’re just making it up as we go

[Author]

Posts