Yes, another question on garments

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I would advise all to shed the notion that god is concerned about you underwear. Garments are an invention of men.

Along with lightbulbs! 🙂

I think I’d be in a much better frame of mind about garments if I hadn’t been so incredibly naive – believing that the pattern came straight from God. Yikes. What was I thinking??? But, for me, that doesn’t mean that the invention has no use.

So, they’re the possibly inspired product of men I didn’t know and probably wouldn’t even have liked had I known them. But they’re worn by people I do know and love. Somewhere in the midst of that I need to decide what they mean to me. What I really want is cultural breathing room to do that.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

GBSmith wrote:

Once again another good reason to consider nudism.

staylds nudist gathering… 😯

Oh, the therapists would be kept busy for a long time after that gathering.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I would advise all to shed the notion that god is concerned about your underwear. Garments are an invention of men.

I agree – but I still wear and value the garment highly. It’s doesn’t have to be “straight from God” or “underwear”. I know it’s neither of those extremes for me.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I think I’d be in a much better frame of mind about garments if I hadn’t been so incredibly naive – believing that the pattern came straight from God. Yikes. What was I thinking??? But, for me, that doesn’t mean that the invention has no use.

So, they’re the possibly inspired product of men I didn’t know and probably wouldn’t even have liked had I known them. But they’re worn by people I do know and love. Somewhere in the midst of that I need to decide what they mean to me. What I really want is cultural breathing room to do that.

Very well-said, Ann. I have no problem with the entire temple ritual, including garments, being entirely the product of people trying to use it as a framework to approach godliness.

Since the dawn of time, men and women have mated, and our species is one that has mated for life for as far back as we can tell. At some point along the way, we developed the idea of having a ceremony to make it official. The wedding ceremony has had many forms throughout time, but every form of it is man-made. Part of the ceremony has often been the taking on of some marking… tattoo, necklace, article of clothing, or ring, that the married parties wear for the rest of their life as a symbol of their commitment to each other. It’s all man-made… and deeply meaningful.

The temple ceremony and its garments represent a close parallel.

So, we can take it as a religiously and spiritually based ritual, created by our tribe as a way to make sense of our place in the universe, and our commitment to God. Garments are our hidden way to demonstrate to ourselves and to God that we are devoted.

Thinking of it in this way makes the notion of masonic symbols of no particular consequence. It would also mean that the rules for wearing garments become personal, as it should be.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

Ann wrote:

I think I’d be in a much better frame of mind about garments if I hadn’t been so incredibly naive – believing that the pattern came straight from God. Yikes. What was I thinking??? But, for me, that doesn’t mean that the invention has no use.

So, they’re the possibly inspired product of men I didn’t know and probably wouldn’t even have liked had I known them. But they’re worn by people I do know and love. Somewhere in the midst of that I need to decide what they mean to me. What I really want is cultural breathing room to do that.

Very well-said, Ann. I have no problem with the entire temple ritual, including garments, being entirely the product of people trying to use it as a framework to approach godliness.

Since the dawn of time, men and women have mated, and our species is one that has mated for life for as far back as we can tell. At some point along the way, we developed the idea of having a ceremony to make it official. The wedding ceremony has had many forms throughout time, but every form of it is man-made. Part of the ceremony has often been the taking on of some marking… tattoo, necklace, article of clothing, or ring, that the married parties wear for the rest of their life as a symbol of their commitment to each other. It’s all man-made… and deeply meaningful.

The temple ceremony and its garments represent a close parallel.

So, we can take it as a religiously and spiritually based ritual, created by our tribe as a way to make sense of our place in the universe, and our commitment to God. Garments are our hidden way to demonstrate to ourselves and to God that we are devoted.

Thinking of it in this way makes the notion of masonic symbols of no particular consequence. It would also mean that the rules for wearing garments become personal, as it should be.

Ann, OON, those are two of the most meaningful explanations of garments I’ve heard – anywhere. Thanks for that.

[Anonymous]

Meh Mormon wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

GBSmith wrote:

Once again another good reason to consider nudism.

staylds nudist gathering… 😯

Oh, the therapists would be kept busy for a long time after that gathering.

Maybe dealing with the religion stuff but I have to tell you, my young textile friend, a good dose of body acceptance can make cognitive dissonance seem a lot less important.

[Author]

Posts