- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Okay, so here’s another question on garments. In the TR interview, there is question that reads substantially as follows: “Do you wear the garment both night and day as previously instructed in the temple and in accordance with the covenants which you have made?” Now, here’s my question … where in the temple ordinances did I covenant to wear them night and day? Where am I instructed that I should wear them 24/7/365? I recall the four major covenants we make, and there’s nothing about wearing garments in there. We’re told what the garments represent, the significance of the markings, and are instructed that they will be a shield and protection for us. I don’t recall anywhere making a covenant regarding them. Now granted, it’s been a long long time since I participated in intiatory sessions, but I don’t remember it there, either. In fact, for the intiatory I only remember being washed, blessed and clothed. I don’t remember me making any covenants in that stage. Am I wrong here? What am I missing? Kumahito wrote:Okay, so here’s another question on garments. In the TR interview, there is question that reads substantially as follows: “Do you wear the garment both night and day as previously instructed in the temple and in accordance with the covenants which you have made?” Now, here’s my question … where in the temple ordinances did I covenant to wear them night and day? Where am I instructed that I should wear them 24/7/365? I recall the four major covenants we make, and there’s nothing about wearing garments in there. We’re told what the garments represent, the significance of the markings, and are instructed that they will be a shield and protection for us. I don’t recall anywhere making a covenant regarding them. Now granted, it’s been a long long time since I participated in intiatory sessions, but I don’t remember it there, either. In fact, for the intiatory I only remember being washed, blessed and clothed. I don’t remember me making any covenants in that stage. Am I wrong here? What am I missing?
There is no covenant regarding garments, only the instruction during the initiatory to “wear them throughout your life and not defile them”. The rest has grown up over time based on personal interpretation by temple workers and church authorities trying to keep us in line. It would be interesting to try and list all of the dos and don’ts about garments that have come and gone through the years. For example a friend of my wife who is in her mid 70s recalls be advised when she was endowed prior to her marriage on how to shower without technically removing her garments. Another elderly patient of mine was was told to get the old ankles and wrists garments with the ties in the front so that he could have sex without removing them. In our ward they’ve started reading the section from the CHI on garments during the interview. All very interesting but I just hold to what I was instructed in the temple. That’s enough.
My bishop at the time was kind enough to instruct me that I didn’t need to tie them around my toe when having a bath or being intimate. Nowadays, If they want me to wear them during sports, then they need to make performance garments. It’s all relative, and probably an indicator for obedience, like most other things. If you feel fine, then that is all that matters.
There is a relatively recent thread about this exact question that has some very good discussion. I will try to find it and bump it up for you to read and for any further comment. The best one is:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3217&hilit=garments It has 86 comments, and, toward the end of the thread, there are quotes straight from the handbook and comments about what that means in terms of counsel and covenant.
Like so many things in religion, garments are a great symbolic element that, when taken too literally, becomes a burden. I look at garments as a daily symbolic act, putting them on, as a reminder to ourselves and a demonstration to God, that we have devoted ourselves to God. That in itself is a great idea. But with all kinds of rules and all sorts of dogma associated with it, it loses its deeper meaning and is relegated to the realm of mysticism. Even the temple itself, in my opinion, is only valuable as a symbolic act. In a ritual, we symbolically take on the identity of Adam and Eve (mankind) for whom this entire creation was set forth. We acknowledge our dependence on God in the face of opposition. We promise to be true to the Gospel. We approach the veil at the end of our existence where we demonstrate that we were faithful in keeping our promises and we enter into an exalted state in the presence of God. I see the specific covenants, signs, blessings, etc as all symbolic of God offering us a better life, our accepting it and keeping it. Nothing more. Garments are simply an extension of that ritual symbolism.
I think it very unfortunate that the temple ordinance, its symbols, and the garments are taken literally.
Hawkgrrrl did an excellent job summarizing garment issues especially as they relate to women over at BCC: http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/13/female-garments-the-underwear-business/#comment-298379 She even gave practical suggestions for improvement.
:thumbup: Deleted Technically couldn’t one wear them day and night without wearing them ALL day and night? I mean like most temple questions it is pretty vague. I guess if I wore them from 4pm to 8pm that should cover it, right? :problem: Yes, and I mentioned that in another thread. Technically, “day and night” could mean putting them on each day and night at some point and immediately taking them off again.
I know that would be rejected by the VAST majority of members, but the actual wording can support it.
I also know someone who says that he nearly always is thinking about sex or is in the process of foreplay, and he views preparation and foreplay as part of sex, and he knows he doesn’t have to wear the garment during sex . . . so he doesn’t wear it whenever he is thinking about or preparing for sex.
😆 😳 :silent: 😆 Here’s my 2 cents (Canadian of course). I wear my garments a lot of the time. When I’m playing softball, football, working on the car, etc I do not wear them. Why? Because they can become damaged or soiled beyond saving. They are special to me, and are a reminder of my beliefs, so why would I wear them doing something that can damage them?
Old-Timer wrote:Yes, and I mentioned that in another thread.
Technically, “day and night” could mean putting them on each day and night at some point and immediately taking them off again.
I know that would be rejected by the VAST majority of members, but the actual wording can support it.
I also know someone who says that he nearly always is thinking about sex or is in the process of foreplay, and he views preparation and foreplay as part of sex, and he knows he doesn’t have to wear the garment during sex . . . so he doesn’t wear it whenever he is thinking about or preparing for sex.
😆 😳 :silent: 😆 In that case, why are men even wearing them? Isn’t there a statistic that shows that men think about sex every 4 seconds or something like that!!
:thumbup: Meh Mormon wrote:
In that case, why are men even wearing them? Isn’t there a statistic that shows that men think about sex every 4 seconds or something like that!!:thumbup: Maybe when they’re 17
I think the benefit of sometimes not wearing them when I’m with my wife has meant that we can have times of being partly/not dressed and not having sex.
If I only ever take them off for sex then any time I take them off it’s a presumed signal of “it’s sex time dear.” That puts an unpleasant pressure on her. Given she no longer believes I have decided that as part of our relationship I will remove that ‘red flag’ by not only ever removing them when ‘it’s time.’
I continue to respect them and the promises they represent. But I don’t think I have to wear them all of every day and all of every night to do so.
mackay11 wrote:Meh Mormon wrote:
In that case, why are men even wearing them? Isn’t there a statistic that shows that men think about sex every 4 seconds or something like that!!:thumbup: Maybe when they’re 17
I think the benefit of sometimes not wearing them when I’m with my wife has meant that we can have times of being partly/not dressed and not having sex.
If I only ever take them off for sex then any time I take them off it’s a presumed signal of “it’s sex time dear.” That puts an unpleasant pressure on her…..
This is actually very well stated and is a problem that many garment wearing members are going to have to face.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I would advise all to shed the notion that god is concerned about your underwear. Garments are an invention of men. cwald wrote:mackay11 wrote:Meh Mormon wrote:
In that case, why are men even wearing them? Isn’t there a statistic that shows that men think about sex every 4 seconds or something like that!!:thumbup: Maybe when they’re 17
I think the benefit of sometimes not wearing them when I’m with my wife has meant that we can have times of being partly/not dressed and not having sex.
If I only ever take them off for sex then any time I take them off it’s a presumed signal of “it’s sex time dear.” That puts an unpleasant pressure on her…..
This is actually very well stated and is a problem that many garment wearing members are going to have to face.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Once again another good reason to consider nudism.
GBSmith wrote:Once again another good reason to consider nudism.
staylds nudist gathering…
😯
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.