NOM

About a month or two ago, I renewed my temple recommend. It has been a few years and the questions had been updated. Most were the same, but the part about the garment had me thinking. I analyze things for a living, so my mind went into full analysis mode. The old question about garments asked if you wore them night and day. In recent years, there have been a number of discussions around this because the promise or assignment in the temple on wearing garments did not ever say to wear the day and night. This was the church trying to force members to do something that they hadn’t committed to.
So, back to the new question. It asks now if you wear them according to the covenant made in the temple. Then after the question, the interviewer must read you a big paragraph on how the church wants you to wear them.
My brief analysis of this is the church recognized that the old TR question about wearing them night and day was not accurate, so it changed the question...however, the big paragraph they have to read to you is an effort to exact control over the member to ensure they know how the church wants you to wear them even though the promise in the temple was only to wear them throughout your life. The is just one of the ways the church seeks to control its members.
Thoughts?

The initiatory was an uncomfortable enough experience for me to only have done it exactly once, no vicarious initiatories. I know they changed it since (a few times), but I'm not interested. Long winded way of saying this is going off an old memory.

2bizE wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 10:01 am

So, back to the new question. It asks now if you wear them according to the covenant made in the temple.

Which covenant is that? Specifically.

They tell you to wear it throughout your life but from what I remember they never invoke covenant making language. You're never given an opportunity to agree or disagree, you're just told to wear it.

Does being told to do something a covenant make?

Maybe the thought process is that you agree to the initiatory, just being there is the buy-in. Given the... sacred nature you go into any agreement completely blind.

If I brought a nice roast to a munch and mingle and an hour in I told everyone that they have to give me $1000 if they ate any roast would that covenant be binding?

I have nothing to add here except that I hate garments with a passion that is unrivaled... except I believe maybe Red Ryder.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 11:11 am

I have nothing to add here except that I hate garments with a passion that is unrivaled... except I believe maybe Red Ryder.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

I’ve been doing a deep dive into why I hate them so much even though I’ve stopped wearing them but rather than rant I’ll stick to the OP.

First, I believe that we were “instructed” to wear them in the temple. We did not make a covenant to wear them.

The paragraph around when and how to wear them is silly. It’s another data point that highlights the need for the church to control every aspect of our lives. One of the Q15 probably got tired of driving home every day from the COB past a young woman/man jogging by his house. Or a few neighbors mowing their lawns in a tank top or shirtless. Not realizing that Utah actually is home to non-Mormons, the offended Q15 called his secretary and said type up an agenda item or memo regarding garments stat! Then in the following Thursday temple meeting with the other GA’s they unanimously voted to add the question to the TR.

Do they think the addendum question really changed anyone’s behavior? Of course not. I’ve been to Utah and tank tops are the new orange. Seems numerous LDS soccer moms have figured out the exercise wear loop hole. I’ll dress in my gym clothes and be comfortable ALL day and nobody will know the wiser. If I run into Sister Smith at the Deli, she’ll just think I’m stopping for roast beef and cheese on the way home from the gym. Crisis adverted.

Personally I think it’s time for a grass roots effort to agitate for a revelation adjustment in the form of a policy change. Or whatever language they’re using now.

How does GiTo sound?
Garments In Temple Only!

Down with the G’s
Death to G G’s
G2 the T?
Free our skin!

nibbler wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 11:10 am

The initiatory was an uncomfortable enough experience for me to only have done it exactly once, no vicarious initiatories. I know they changed it since (a few times), but I'm not interested. Long winded way of saying this is going off an old memory.

Me too Nibbler. I’ve done it ONE time and never again. Even before my faith crisis I knew something wasn’t right with that. Makes me angry now.

LDS requirements on garment wearing depend heavily on social pressure and less on explicit instructions. Mormons want to keep garments both secret and sacred so that they don't get called out on their use. The trick is frame the question with some biting rhetoric that the average TBM would not want to publicly embrace.

So you get asked a formal question about wearing temple garments. Make them have to address the absurdity of the situation. Respond with your own pointed question such as, "Did you ever expect that adults might ask such detailed questions about someone else's underpants in a church setting?"

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 12:34 pm

Do they think the addendum question really changed anyone’s behavior? Of course not. I’ve been to Utah and tank tops are the new orange. Seems numerous LDS soccer moms have figured out the exercise wear loop hole. I’ll dress in my gym clothes and be comfortable ALL day and nobody will know the wiser. If I run into Sister Smith at the Deli, she’ll just think I’m stopping for roast beef and cheese on the way home from the gym. Crisis adverted.

I live in an area where the Mormon church is beyond insignificant, but my wife still does not take any garment loopholes and she knows how much I hate them, so I wish she could be around those taking those loopholes.

I once mentioned to her how many people don't wear them 24/7 and she replied with "Well they aren't true believers then."

As a convert no one told me about garments until the temple prep class and I just wanted to throw up when I saw them. They are the worst underwear ever and are absolutely a means of controlling members - and they have Masonic symbols stitched into them as if that's supposed to be a symbol of protection?!

nibbler wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 11:10 am

2bizE wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 10:01 am

So, back to the new question. It asks now if you wear them according to the covenant made in the temple.

Which covenant is that? Specifically.

They tell you to wear it throughout your life but from what I remember they never invoke covenant making language. You're never given an opportunity to agree or disagree, you're just told to wear it.

Does being told to do something a covenant make?

Every "covenant" made it the temple ends with this phrase: "Bow your head and say yes."

At no point, during any of the ceremonies in the temple did anyone "Bow your(their) head and say yes" to temple garments.

There is no covenant to wear Polygamy Panataloons™.

If someone pulls out some sort of "it's implied" nonsense, ask them if the folks who do live sessions have to attempt to get EVERY WORD THEY SAY correct? If the wording of the rest of the ceremony is THAT IMPORTANT, then the fact that there is no covenant about underwear is just as important.

And now, if I were not typing on NOM, I'd let loose a long list of swear words explaining how much I hate garments.

2bizE wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 10:01 am

Then after the question, the interviewer must read you a big paragraph on how the church wants you to wear them.

This is one of the weirdest things in the temple recommend. They don't give you a card to read about chastity or Word of Wisdom, or sustaining The Brethren, so why do you have to read a paragraph of specific underwear-related instructions? It almost feels like a legal thing to me. K&M warned the church that there could be liabilities from speaking out loud about underwear-related issues behind closed doors? Or is it some kind of Victorian feigned modesty; it's improper to speak of undergarments in polite company?

But it's only icing on the cake next to the very idea that you must satisfy two of your neighbors, who claim to have authority over you via undetectable magic powers, that your underwear wearing habits are satisfactory to them. Otherwise they can deny you essential saving ordinances and potentially affect your eternal-freakin' soul. Regardless of what else you think about the LDS church, this is masonic underwear hoopla is just plain cult behavior.

Here's another thing that really bugs me. Why don't give clear instructions about how you should discard them? And WHEN to discard them, for crying out lout. Is it really respectful to sacred items to deny them retirement before they completely disintegrate? Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about, ye of holey garments! Cut out the marks, right? It's like a secret whisper campaign. My mom would cut out the marks and save them up until she had enough to make a little fire, like a bizarre little sacrifice to Elohim. I remember seeing her do it and I asked what she was doing. "Nothing!" with an embarrassed, guilty look on her face, like she had almost revealed a forbidden secret.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 8:54 pm

2bizE wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 10:01 am

Then after the question, the interviewer must read you a big paragraph on how the church wants you to wear them.

This is one of the weirdest things in the temple recommend. They don't give you a card to read about chastity or Word of Wisdom, or sustaining The Brethren, so why do you have to read a paragraph of specific underwear-related instructions? It almost feels like a legal thing to me. K&M warned the church that there could be liabilities from speaking out loud about underwear-related issues behind closed doors? Or is it some kind of Victorian feigned modesty; it's improper to speak of undergarments in polite company?

But it's only icing on the cake next to the very idea that you must satisfy two of your neighbors, who claim to have authority over you via undetectable magic powers, that your underwear wearing habits are satisfactory to them. Otherwise they can deny you essential saving ordinances and potentially affect your eternal-freakin' soul. Regardless of what else you think about the LDS church, this is masonic underwear hoopla is just plain cult behavior.

Here's another thing that really bugs me. Why don't give clear instructions about how you should discard them? And WHEN to discard them, for crying out lout. Is it really respectful to sacred items to deny them retirement before they completely disintegrate? Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about, ye of holey garments! Cut out the marks, right? It's like a secret whisper campaign. My mom would cut out the marks and save them up until she had enough to make a little fire, like a bizarre little sacrifice to Elohim. I remember seeing her do it and I asked what she was doing. "Nothing!" with an embarrassed, guilty look on her face, like she had almost revealed a forbidden secret.

That's great Hagoth. The secret method of garment destruction is passed from parents to children throughout the generations. My Dad taught me to cut out the symbols and flush them down the toilet and then throw away the rest when they're ready for retirement. What have you converts without member parents to teach them do? Any other secret garment retirement ordnances people have?

I was told during the temple prep class that we were to cut out the symbols and burn them or cut them into tiny pieces kind of like an expired credit card.

My garments are still in the home somewhere - I believe DW put them in a bag and has them stored somewhere... one day I need to locate them so I can toss them out Masonic symbols and all.

2bizE wrote: ↑

Wed May 05, 2021 10:01 am

Then after the question, the interviewer must read you a big paragraph on how the church wants you to wear them.

Is this online anywhere? I googled but didn’t wade through all the Mitt Romney and Mormonboyz garment porn results.

Curious to find where to read this.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 7:17 am

I was told during the temple prep class that we were to cut out the symbols and burn them or cut them into tiny pieces kind of like an expired credit card.

My garments are still in the home somewhere - I believe DW put them in a bag and has them stored somewhere... one day I need to locate them so I can toss them out Masonic symbols and all.

Apparently, you were not trained in the true order of garment retirement.
This is done by gathering around in a large circle with a fire in the center. Each person to retire there garments is wearing only them. The men and women alternate, position so two men and two men do not stand next to each other. A dagger is provided to kill the lamb or goat**. Then the group starts with both hands in the air and lowering them dances three full circles to the left, then three full circles to the right. Then each person removes their garments and discards them in the fire. Now, each person is naked. The person on the right then helps the person on the left dress into their new garments.
** if no lamb or goat is available, a similar sacrifice can be made by each person donating an additional 10% of their income directly to Ensign Peak Advisors.

jfro18 wrote:I have nothing to add here except that I hate garments with a passion that is unrivaled... except I believe maybe Red Ryder.

Garments are an offense the the human body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They were the first real change I made as a result of changing beliefs. For me they became symbolic of polygamy and I just couldn't stomach wearing them any longer. For a while I would wear them on Sundays but eventually I couldn't even make myself do that. For years afterwards I dressed as though I was wearing them, partly to avoid having people talk about me and partly because it just felt so strange to show more skin.

I see them now as a method of control and a way to make members feel set apart from the world, special in some way.

Summer is a whole lot cooler these days.

LostGirl wrote: ↑

Wed May 12, 2021 3:26 am

They were the first real change I made as a result of changing beliefs. For me they became symbolic of polygamy and I just couldn't stomach wearing them any longer. For a while I would wear them on Sundays but eventually I couldn't even make myself do that. For years afterwards I dressed as though I was wearing them, partly to avoid having people talk about me and partly because it just felt so strange to show more skin.

I see them now as a method of control and a way to make members feel set apart from the world, special in some way.

Summer is a whole lot cooler these days.

What are some ways you dressed like you were wearing them?

2bizE wrote: ↑

Wed May 12, 2021 8:50 am

LostGirl wrote: ↑

Wed May 12, 2021 3:26 am

They were the first real change I made as a result of changing beliefs. For me they became symbolic of polygamy and I just couldn't stomach wearing them any longer. For a while I would wear them on Sundays but eventually I couldn't even make myself do that. For years afterwards I dressed as though I was wearing them, partly to avoid having people talk about me and partly because it just felt so strange to show more skin.

I see them now as a method of control and a way to make members feel set apart from the world, special in some way.

Summer is a whole lot cooler these days.

What are some ways you dressed like you were wearing them?

Mostly with the length of shorts and dresses. I felt like I could be comfortable going shorter but I knew doing so would spill my secret.

LDS underGarments would have been a big relief to those forced to wear hair shirts during the Inquisition (the Spanish one, not the Utah one under the reign of President Bednar).

Old vs. new wording of question 13 of the Temple Recommend: (All CAPS indicate words removed in the current question)

“13. a. Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
b. Do you wear the garment BOTH DAY AND NIGHT as instructed in the endowment AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COVENANT YOU MADE IN THE TEMPLE?”

The person giving the interview is then instructed to read the “Wearing the Temple Garment" statement below:

Wearing the Temple Garment
Wearing the garment is the sacred privilege of those who have taken upon themselves the covenants of the temple. The garment is a reminder of these covenants and, when properly worn, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil.
IT IS EXPECTED THAT MEMBERS WILL WEAR THE GARMENT BOTH NIGHT AND DAY, ACCORDING TO COVENANTS MADE IN THE TEMPLE. Members should not ADJUST THE GARMENT OR WEAR IT CONTRARY TO INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER (it now says “should not be modified”) to accommodate different styles of clothing, EVEN WHEN SUCH CLOTHING MAY BE GENERALLY ACCEPTED. The garment should not be removed, 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 (now it says "while wearing the garment").
MEMBERS WHO HAVE MADE COVENANTS IN THE TEMPLE (it now says "endowed members") should BE GUIDED BY [says now "seek guidance of) the Holy Spirit to answer FOR THEMSELVES personal questions about wearing the garment. THESE SACRED COVENANTS ARE BETWEEN THE MEMBER AND THE LORD, AND THE PROPER WEARING OF the garment is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.”

This sounds like a way to avoid having members wonder or ask if they can have intimate relations without wearing the garment.
Some old concepts die a miserably slow death.

Thanks for posting the wording.

Seems like it generalized the question.

However, the day and night rhetoric is still burned into every TBM’s collective memory.

No way any TBM is removing their garments to sleep comfortably at night.