TR Question Survey – Question 12: Temple Covenants

[Anonymous]

So, if a spouse believes the quote from Shawn above to be interpreted to mean one thing, and believes their spouse is not complying, and despite several attempts to help them see they should wear it correctly (from their view), with no success, and then in frustration goes to the bishop to get guidance on how to help the other spouse comply with covenants that affect the eternal family…

…as a leader, or as a bishop, what would you do?

What should the spouse who is being told to wear them differently do to respond to a confrontation by the bishop?

(I sincerely ask this because I think sometimes people navigating their faith struggle with how they see things are ok, but need to deal with family members and others that disagree with them…I think we could provide examples on how to have your own belief about something and stand up for it while maintaining relationships. Just some background behind my intentions of this post.).

[Anonymous]

Quote:

…as a leader, or as a bishop, what would you do?

I would tell the spouse that I can’t get involved in that situation and that all I can do is ask the question during the temple recommend interview. I probably also would tell him or her that I know various members who wear the garment differently than each other and that it is between those people and the Lord.

I know, however, that many Bishops would be worried and would, therefore, try to talk with the other spouse and convince him or her to wear the garment according to the current interpretation.

Quote:

What should the spouse who is being told to wear them differently do to respond to a confrontation by the bishop?

Thank him sincerely and honestly for his concern and love, and tell him that he or she will ponder even more, pray about it and act according to whatever answer he or she believes results – then go home and do that, letting the spouse know what is happening. If there are no damaging body image or other psychological issues involved, and if wearing the garment is an option, frankly, I would suggest wearing it for the emotional support of the spouse – but telling the spouse directly that going to the Bishop to try to force the issue was not appreciated and won’t have the same result if done again. I might even quote D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion if I was in a particularly bad mood – but I wouldn’t suggest it when dealing with a wife.

[Anonymous]

Re. the letter quoted in Nephite’s post: I have never understood that I made a covenant to wear garments, but that my garments are to remind me of the covenants I did make. Would appreciate some help. What is going on here?

[Anonymous]

It’s mentioned tangentially but not as an explicit covenant where anyone says, “Yes” to a specific question. The actual temple wording is more along the lines of a classic “If . . . then . . .” statement, which isn’t the pure definition of a covenant.

It’s treated as a covenant (sort of an implied promise) by many members, since there is a promise attached to wearing it – and because we overuse the word “covenant” in the Church.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Re. the letter quoted in Nephite’s post: I have never understood that I made a covenant to wear garments, but that my garments are to remind me of the covenants I did make. Would appreciate some help. What is going on here?

It happened like this: “Sister _________, having authority, I place this garment upon you, which you must wear throughout your life.” I’m not saying that’s a covenant you made – just showing you the wording.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Quote:

this has been interpreted to mean

ya gotta love passive voice. it wonderfully absolves any responsibility to identify the source of the ‘doctrine’.

As well, it’s one of many.

‘this has been interpreted to mean’ wear them day and night’. ‘this has also been interpreted’ to wear them only in the temple, and to set them aside reverently rather than defile them in daily use. Both statements are true, because neither says that ‘this has been interpreted to explicitly and exclusively mean’….

I find this depressing when an unsourced, passive voiced statement becomes commandment.

Fwiw, the source is the First Presidency. I don’t see how “Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment [throughout your life]” could be interpreted to mean “wear them only in the temple, and to set them aside reverently rather than defile them in daily use.” Anyway, just giving my view.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Re. the letter quoted in Nephite’s post: I have never understood that I made a covenant to wear garments, but that my garments are to remind me of the covenants I did make. Would appreciate some help. What is going on here?

There isn’t a covenant to wear the garment, only the instruction during the washing and annointing to “wear them throughout your life”. The day and night and menntion of covenants was added as part of the interview but isn’t part of the endowment.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

Quote:

this has been interpreted to mean

ya gotta love passive voice. it wonderfully absolves any responsibility to identify the source of the ‘doctrine’.

As well, it’s one of many.

‘this has been interpreted to mean’ wear them day and night’. ‘this has also been interpreted’ to wear them only in the temple, and to set them aside reverently rather than defile them in daily use. Both statements are true, because neither says that ‘this has been interpreted to explicitly and exclusively mean’….

I find this depressing when an unsourced, passive voiced statement becomes commandment.

Fwiw, the source is the First Presidency. I don’t see how “Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment [throughout your life]” could be interpreted to mean “wear them only in the temple, and to set them aside reverently rather than defile them in daily use.” Anyway, just giving my view.

“this has been interpreted” is present perfect passive voice. this means the interpretation occurred in the past and is now complete (perfect). Let’s say that you interpreted something yesterday as X, and I interpreted something the day before as Y. in simple past tense active voice, I would say “you interpreted X yesterday”, this would point to the actual event of interpreting it. If I say “you have interpreted X”, then it means that you made that interpretation sometime in the past — but it’s still active voice that you have interpreted it that way. If I say I have intepreted Y and you have interpreted X, all true — no conflict here. But when we move to passive voice, it removes the action agent: you and me. Therefore, I can say “X has been interpreted” and “Y has been interpreted”, both true, but also seemingly in conflict. It’s not. passive voiced present perfect causes a conflict where anything interpreted any way by anyone still allows the statement to be true.

During the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the garment was NOT to be worn as a regular piece of clothing. JS and BY interpreted it as not to be worn regularly. Later, someone evolved toward a policy of wearing it all the time. We don’t know by whom, we don’t know when. Therefore “has been interpreted” is a true statement, but also completely non-specific, and in fact in conflict with JS and BY’s interpretation.

So what.

For the life of me, shawn, I fail to understand why these little issues bother you. At some point in your life you may discover, as most of us have, that there are far more important things in life to be concerned about than how and when one wears a piece of underwear.

What I wrote in the original post I stand by fully:

---

To enumerate the covenants you made in the temple, here is the a quote from a public speech:

Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Devotional, 12 April 1977, wrote:

Celestial laws, embodied in certain ordinances belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, are complied with by voluntary covenants. The laws are spiritual. Thus, our Father in Heaven has ordained certain holy sanctuaries, called temples, in which these laws may be fully explained, the laws include the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration. full talk here

so according to Benson’s words:

1. Law of obedience and sacrifice

2. Law of the gospel

3. Law of chastity

4. Law of consecration

[note: these are the covenants of the temple, plus the covenants of secrecy that go with the first three. There are no other covenants in the temple.]

In addition, the question asks, “Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?”

The instructions in the temple are simply to wear the garment throughout your life. Specific logistical details as to how often or when it is to be worn are not provided in the temple. While “throughout your life” is interpreted (note passive voice) as being day and night, such instructions are not explicitly given in the words of the temple ceremonies. The ‘covenant’ of the garment, the two-way promise is that if you wear it throughout your life, and do not defile it, it will be a shield and protection to you.

‘do not defile it’ is often thought of as treating the garment like a flag: never let it touch the floor, etc., etc. I think whoever put these words out had something else in mind.

”shield and protection’ — the folklore is around ‘magic underwear’ — lots of faith-promoting stories around miraculous saving from bullets, etc. This isn’t a real benefit — but be that as it may.

The garment, to me, is a inward symbol of the temple covenants. Such symbols are common in other religions: sikhs and jews wear sacred underwear of some sort. It’s a symbol of commitment. How and when I wear that symbol is entirely up to me, imo.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Wayfarer for your response.

I’ll just quote Pres Uchtdorf again because I think it is fitting to this discussion:

Quote:

there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”-Pres Uchtdorf

Not letting garments touch the floor, for example, may be a “good idea” someone came up with once and it got perpetuated in temple instruction sessions – but the covenants we are making are very different and have a different purpose and meaning to me (eternal principles) than a list of do’s and don’ts. Same goes for “wearing them all the time, day and night”.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

“this has been interpreted” is present perfect passive voice. this means the interpretation occurred in the past and is now complete (perfect). Let’s say that you interpreted something yesterday as X, and I interpreted something the day before as Y. in simple past tense active voice, I would say “you interpreted X yesterday”, this would point to the actual event of interpreting it. If I say “you have interpreted X”, then it means that you made that interpretation sometime in the past — but it’s still active voice that you have interpreted it that way. If I say I have intepreted Y and you have interpreted X, all true — no conflict here. But when we move to passive voice, it removes the action agent: you and me. Therefore, I can say “X has been interpreted” and “Y has been interpreted”, both true, but also seemingly in conflict. It’s not. passive voiced present perfect causes a conflict where anything interpreted any way by anyone still allows the statement to be true.

During the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the garment was NOT to be worn as a regular piece of clothing. JS and BY interpreted it as not to be worn regularly. Later, someone evolved toward a policy of wearing it all the time. We don’t know by whom, we don’t know when. Therefore “has been interpreted” is a true statement, but also completely non-specific, and in fact in conflict with JS and BY’s interpretation.

So what.

For the life of me, shawn, I fail to understand why these little issues bother you. At some point in your life you may discover, as most of us have, that there are far more important things in life to be concerned about than how and when one wears a piece of underwear.

The phrase “this has been interpreted” is not used in the temple recommend interview.

What Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught and practiced regarding the garment was changed by the First Presidency in a letter dated Oct. 10, 1988, if not sooner.

I didn’t say I am bothered. I am providing my view, as others have done.

[Anonymous]

shawn, I don’t know if you have been a clerk or in a bishopric, but please be aware that policy as stated in FP letters are meant for the time that they are published. every 4-6 years, a new Church Handbook of Instructions comes out with explicit instructions to destroy all prior FP letters, bulletins, and CHI manuals. Church policy is for a time and place.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

shawn, I don’t know if you have been a clerk or in a bishopric, but please be aware that policy as stated in FP letters are meant for the time that they are published. every 4-6 years, a new Church Handbook of Instructions comes out with explicit instructions to destroy all prior FP letters, bulletins, and CHI manuals. Church policy is for a time and place.

I see what you mean. In this case, at least part of the 1988 letter is still relevant because the part about wearing the garment “both day and night” is still in the interview question and in the CHI. The CHI also includes

Quote:

…They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.

Since Church policy is for a time and place, I’m not worried about how Joseph Smith and Brigham Young approached this issue.

If we look at only the words used in the question, the phrase stated in a present perfect passive voice is not relevant. If we do consider the phrase “this has been interpreted,” then perhaps what is currently in the CHI should also be considered.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I would love a source for the limited garment wearing practices of the early saints.

[Anonymous]

One point, and only one point, for the purpose of this thread:

We are talking in this thread about the actual temple “covenant”, NOT interpretations of it.

In that context, I agree totally with wayfarer – that when I look at the actual wording of what is said in the temple, and then (and only then) add the wording of the temple recommend interview, I get the following:

Temple summary:

Quote:

Wear the garment as a symbol of the covering of nakedness that occurred when Adam and Eve entered mortality. Wear it throughout your life. Don’t defile it. If you do that, it will shield and protect you (in some unspecified way).

Recommend question, with my own emphasis in bold:

Quote:

“Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?”

When you look at the actual instructions in the endowment, and when you look at the actual wording of the “two-way promise” in the temple, the recommend question actually asks (without interpretation of any kind) the following principle-based question:

Quote:

“Do you wear the garment throughout your life in such a way that you are not defiling it?”

Defining “defiling” and the specifics of “throughout your life” are the only ambiguities, and I am comfortable with people seeing those terms differently and, thus, acting in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences. If that means every minute possible to some, I am fine with that; if it means as a covering over regular underwear to others (so the garment doesn’t feel like regular old underwear), I am fine with that; if it means at some point during the day and at night throughout one’s life to others, I am fine with that; if it means attending the temple during daytime and nighttime sessions to others, I am fine with that.

I need to decide what it means to me personally and follow that; I couldn’t care less how others end up seeing it, as long as it doesn’t cross my fairly generous lines of what constitutes unequivocal defilement. (like wearing it outside one’s clothes or leaving it lying in a stinking heap on the floor for days on end) In that light (not defiling it), while I personally wear it in the manner of traditional underwear, I would understand totally if others wore it over traditional underwear in order to keep it cleaner and purer in their minds. That’s done by lots of women while menstruating and nursing, so the general principle is accepted widely already in the Church.

[Anonymous]

I woke up this morning thinking about this topic. I realized I sometimes come to this forum and parrot orthodox views regardless of what I think. I actually don’t like wearing garments and I question the history and need for them.

So here’s how I reckon it – I knew before I entered the temple that I would wear garments from that point onward. In the temple, I was told “I place this garment upon you, which you must wear throughout your life.”

I was later told “You have had a garment placed upon you…This you were instructed to wear throughout your life.”

When interviewed for a recommend, I am asked “Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?”

The First Presidency in 1988 issued a letter saying “Practices frequently observed among the members of the Church suggest that some members do not fully understand the covenant they make in the temple to wear the garment in accordance with the spirit of the holy endowment.”

Much of the content of that letter is currently in the Church Handbook of Instruction (with some different wording): “Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.”

Before coming to this question when being interviewed, I would have indicated that I do sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators so I take all of the above into consideration. With the words “night and day” and “throughout your life” and the clarification from the First Presidency, it makes sense to me that I should wear garments every day and night and remove them only when necessary.

Even though I am questioning the history and need for them, I still wear them to be on the safe side.

[Author]

Posts