NOM

If garments are an outward expression of an inward commitment...why can't anyone see them...think head coverings for Muslim, Sihk and Jews...

I've never heard them described that way from a Mormon point of view.

The implication seems always to have been that they are sacred and not meant for public display because:

1. They do carry a little magic.

2. They have the sacred/secret marks of the covenants embroidered in the garment. Those are definitely not for public consumption.

3. Wearing them on the outside would give the appearance of following trendsetters like Madonna. (Failed attempt to imitate Moksha)

Mormons are always trying to see them on other Mormons though...I’ve been garment checked by several family members and had a brother call me out for not wearing them.

Anon70 wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 09, 2019 11:43 pm

Mormons are always trying to see them on other Mormons though...I’ve been garment checked by several family members and had a brother call me out for not wearing them.

Calling out conversation between two Mormons.

Jacob:
"Hey Spencer, how come you're not wearing your garments?"

Spencer:
Whoa, do you think Heavenly Father can tell?

Jacob:
"Of course he can!"

Spencer:
"Do you think he knew it before you did?"

Jacob:
"I'm sure he did!"

Spencer:
"He never mentioned it....."

Jacob:

I remember someone on NOM talking about how easy it is to spot Mormons at Disneyland. They're the only people who wear a t-shirt under their t-shirt on a hot day.

I think the church's insistence that you promise to wear garments while doing yardwork is just about the most telling thing about the religion. Whether or not you consider them a cult, it is a giveaway that they really want to be a cult when they can get away with it.

I find the promulgating the idea of an "outward sign" a disingenuous attempt to create an excuse for wearing them.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:09 am

I remember someone on NOM talking about how easy it is to spot Mormons at Disneyland. They're the only people who wear a t-shirt under their t-shirt on a hot day.

I think the church's insistence that you promise to wear garments while doing yardwork is just about the most telling thing about the religion. Whether or not you consider them a cult, it is a giveaway that they really want to be a cult when they can get away with it.

Oh yeah. Give them a few years in an unfettered state and you would see how fast polygamy would come back, along with the United Order.

We own the land and we just let you use it. Give us ALL your money and we'll give you back what we think you need. Oh, and is your daughter available for an "interview" this afternoon?

Double post

Palerider wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:45 am

Oh yeah. Give them a few years in an unfettered state and you would see how fast polygamy would come back, along with the United Order.

We own the land and we just let you use it. Give us ALL your money and we'll give you back what we think you need. Oh, and is your daughter available for an "interview" this afternoon?

I fear that this is entirely true. Just observe what happens with the BYU Honor Code. It acts as an unchecked cultural authority when it can hold complete sway over the education of youth. It would be a complete comedy (with a few tragic elements) if the church tried to enforce the BYU Honor Code in an average ward, even inside Utah. While many stalwart believers would go along with the Honor Code restrictions, the rate of non-compliance would be very high. I would go as far to say that I would personally enjoy not complying much to the distress of my believing wife and long-suffering ward leadership.

The Honor Code only works because students have such a high cost in time and money for changing schools. The Honor Code is enforced by people who are on the direct payroll of the LDS church. My bishop is valiant, true believer and an excellent example of a good bishop. But he is also an administrator at a local hospital and could not lose his secular job even if he was a complete slacker as a bishop (note, he is no slacker).

Anon70 wrote:Mormons are always trying to see them on other Mormons though...I’ve been garment checked by several family members and had a brother call me out for not wearing them.

I got a big hug a couple holiday seasons ago from a woman I had known 20 years earlier in a singles ward we both attended. It was surprising and unexpected, and only afterwards did I realize what she was doing it for. Word had gotten around the old friends' group that I was had dropped out, and rather than asking me about it put it to the ol' finger test.

I was reminded of the "grand key" mentioned in the D&C on how to tell angels from devils by offering to shake hands. Actually, the shaking hands part seems a little less sneaky than feeling for garment lines, if one were to ask me.

What's messed up is that after ditching g's it took me about two years to fogure out how to dress myself. What do *I* like, feel comfortable, and look good in?

I feel like I dress more "modestly" now vs right after stopping because I had to figure it out. I never did anything extreme, but by Mormon standards sleeveless is scandalous. 90% of what I wear now would work with garments, but I wear almost none of the clothes I wore when I had them because its triggering.

Keewon wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:39 pm

I was reminded of the "grand key" mentioned in the D&C on how to tell angels from devils by offering to shake hands. Actually, the shaking hands part seems a little less sneaky than feeling for garment lines, if one were to ask me.

Thread jack:

And you know the really crazy thing about that key is that in the temple Adam and Peter shake hands and this is supposedly before Peter, James and John have been born. So they must be spirit angels, right? I mean they're portrayed as coming down from Heavenly Father's presence. According to that key, as a righteous spirit, Peter must refuse to shake hands, much less offer his hand.

So either everything in the temple ceremony is symbolic and never happened the way it is portrayed or else Peter is really an evil spirit.

It must be so hard to remember all this crap when you're Joseph and just making it up as you go.....

ETA: But when you think about it, shouldn't both revelations line up if they are based in truth? They should be harmonious even if one (the temple) is entirely symbolic. I call a big B.S. on both.