Questioning my Garments

A place for conservative women to discuss true women's liberation, the role of women in healing America, the truth about feminism and more...
User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

Hyrcanus wrote: The claim of protection from the garment is a modern contrival: it is not original, so I'm not sure how that could precede the changes, which it does not.
I'm not sure how modern it is, I think it dates back to the idea that Willard Richards emerged unscathed because he was wearing his. I'd have to do some digging to see how early that connection was made.

RE: Marks, I don't think his remarks are entirely without merit, but they did come after he had already affiliated himself with the Strangites and then what would become the RLDS movement, so that has to factor into possible motivations. Just as you would factor affiliation with the Utah church into remarks by the others. Long story short, they're not bulletproof.[/quote]

I think you are correct, Heber C. Kimball, in his journal, expressed the idea that the garments protected Richards. That was 21 Dec, 1845. But that succeeds the original garment of course, which was changed a few times after the JS murder.

Keep in mind that Marks was against polygamy from day one. He seems to be one of the few level headed individuals that emerge from that time. I guess now would be a bad time to introduce JS's attempts to get Marks' wife into a union while Marks was away. Whatever group Marks was in, as you call it Strangeite, it matters not, whether he affiliated with that group or the Brighamites (now modern LDS), is meaningless.

As for bulletproof, sure, nothing is. A journal is good though, but if we even attempt to begin to use that as a standard, we should do it universally, and if we do, then it immediately casts not light, but a shadow on JS's "first vision" itself.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

rproe67 wrote:What church history should we believe? What is bulletproof!?
You get to choose. For what it is worth, a journal is a testimony that stands up quite well in any court, for obvious reasons.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

buffalo_girl wrote:Find that which is HOLY and adhere to it until you come to see your loved ones on the other side.
Sure. But there are many NDE's that show re-uniting of families after death, and there was no requirement of anything to do with the LDS to accomplish that.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

freedomforall wrote:We are told the garment is a protection for us throughout our life in the temple. Temples have been around for a long time, including Solomon's.
There is no good evidence that what LDS temples perform had anything to do with Solomon in any form. Solomon's temple was closer to what was done in Aaron's temple, if anything. But Aaron's temple was part of the Mosaic law, which was completely and totally fulfilled by Christ, finally demonstrated by a bait and switch style routine, where He showed that the new temple, his body, was the focal point, while the old external temple, was done completely away.

Many have since performed their own resurrections, bringing back not the whole Mosaic law, but whatever parts suit them best. ie. many parts of the LDS endowment and initiatory are straight out of the OT. In this way, you end up with a mix of the old and the new, but they are as incompatible as oil and water.

You either get one or the other, if you understand what Christ really did.

If not, mix away.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

freedomforall wrote:So the statement of being "absolutely CERTAIN it's the Lord who is doing the talking" is absolutely valid and good advice.
I see what you are saying, but if even if an angel appears, or you scry out a book of scripture, or are the medium for any communication, how can you ascertain the "inspiration" is from the right source? If JS confesses "I was deceived", then isn't that putting us all on notice?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by freedomforall »

ithink wrote:
freedomforall wrote:We are told the garment is a protection for us throughout our life in the temple. Temples have been around for a long time, including Solomon's.
There is no good evidence that what LDS temples perform had anything to do with Solomon in any form. Solomon's temple was closer to what was done in Aaron's temple, if anything. But Aaron's temple was part of the Mosaic law, which was completely and totally fulfilled by Christ, finally demonstrated by a bait and switch style routine, where He showed that the new temple, his body, was the focal point, while the old external temple, was done completely away.

Many have since performed their own resurrections, bringing back not the whole Mosaic law, but whatever parts suit them best. ie. many parts of the LDS endowment and initiatory are straight out of the OT. In this way, you end up with a mix of the old and the new, but they are as incompatible as oil and water.

You either get one or the other, if you understand what Christ really did.

If not, mix away.
So, do you say that people going to the temple and having them told that the garment is a protection...is a lie being told them?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by freedomforall »

ithink wrote:
freedomforall wrote:So the statement of being "absolutely CERTAIN it's the Lord who is doing the talking" is absolutely valid and good advice.
I see what you are saying, but if even if an angel appears, or you scry out a book of scripture, or are the medium for any communication, how can you ascertain the "inspiration" is from the right source? If JS confesses "I was deceived", then isn't that putting us all on notice?
If an angel appears, reach out your hand and ask to shake their hand.

Doctrine and Covenants 129:4-9
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

When receiving answers to prayers:

Doctrine and Covenants 8:2
2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

These are ways of being certain one is getting correct information from God.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

freedomforall wrote:So, do you say that people going to the temple and having them told that the garment is a protection...is a lie being told them?
If it is protection, from what? Adultery? Many have committed that with them on. From physical harm? Many have been injured and killed with them on. From possession? Many are possessed with them on.

If they are protection, then from what?

It seems the sub culture has stories running around about "protection" the garment has provided. Burn stories mostly. But never any stories of prevention of ampitation, oddly.

If there is any protection from anything with them on, it is only in the head of the believer. But of course there is fear in that same mind too, that if you take them off, you are subject to possession, and many other ills, but that is pure hokum.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

freedomforall wrote:If an angel appears, reach out your hand and ask to shake their hand.

Doctrine and Covenants 129:4-9
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

When receiving answers to prayers:

Doctrine and Covenants 8:2
2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

These are ways of being certain one is getting correct information from God.
That is pure RUBBISH. Joseph asserted that the same angel that appeared with a sword and commanded him to legally adulterate was the same one that appeared to him from the beginning. Later, he renounced that and said he was "deceived". If so, it is not possible a true messenger from God can deliver positive messages, then go wrong so badly.

Joseph said if his error was not put down abruptly, it would ruin the Church. Now there is a prophecy for you. It is clear that practice was not put down abruptly, it continued on covertly and then overtly for decades and decades under the Brighamites, but the damage it did is just beginning to take hold now.

Joseph's method for discerning by hand clasping failed him, and it will fail you too.

As for the other method, with promptings and ideas, and feelings. Look, I haven't darkened the door of the chapel for nearly two years. What "inspiration" I ever had hasn't let up one iota. I get all kinds of promptings, ideas, and sentences. What "knowledge" I think I receive, has to be measured against what I already know. And I'm far enough down the line to accept anything from any source if I perceive it to be true, while I just as easily reject anything from anyone if it's perceived (by me) to be not. This privilege is granted to all men. Some tune into it better than others, but it is there for everyone. You and I and everyone else have a spiritual connection that can be easily cultivated with or without a bricks and mortar church of any shape or form.

The key though is that such promptings are not for anyone else but me. I can say anything I want, and anyone else can agree or disagree, but as soon as someone thinks I'm a seer or a prophet, there is the fatal mistake right at the start.

Believe in your self, your "I am", and you will be fine.

User avatar
Hyrcanus
captain of 100
Posts: 716

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by Hyrcanus »

ithink wrote:
Hyrcanus wrote:I'm not sure how modern it is, I think it dates back to the idea that Willard Richards emerged unscathed because he was wearing his. I'd have to do some digging to see how early that connection was made.

RE: Marks, I don't think his remarks are entirely without merit, but they did come after he had already affiliated himself with the Strangites and then what would become the RLDS movement, so that has to factor into possible motivations. Just as you would factor affiliation with the Utah church into remarks by the others. Long story short, they're not bulletproof.
I think you are correct, Heber C. Kimball, in his journal, expressed the idea that the garments protected Richards. That was 21 Dec, 1845. But that succeeds the original garment of course, which was changed a few times after the JS murder.

Keep in mind that Marks was against polygamy from day one. He seems to be one of the few level headed individuals that emerge from that time. I guess now would be a bad time to introduce JS's attempts to get Marks' wife into a union while Marks was away. Whatever group Marks was in, as you call it Strangeite, it matters not, whether he affiliated with that group or the Brighamites (now modern LDS), is meaningless.

As for bulletproof, sure, nothing is. A journal is good though, but if we even attempt to begin to use that as a standard, we should do it universally, and if we do, then it immediately casts not light, but a shadow on JS's "first vision" itself.
I disagree that affiliations are meaningless. Also, I think the remarks in question from Marks were from an interview as opposed to a journal, but that is a minor quibble I could be mistaken about. I definitely agree that we don't have any documentary evidence that protection was one of the drivers behind the garment initially. I also agree that the standard I'm proposing cuts both ways, I'm OK with that.

Really my only issue with the Marks quote is that it is a late recollection that can't be independently confirmed. I don't think that makes it worth it, it just doesn't rise to the level of being able to say that we know Joseph said those things, at least for me.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

Hyrcanus wrote:I disagree that affiliations are meaningless. Also, I think the remarks in question from Marks were from an interview as opposed to a journal, but that is a minor quibble I could be mistaken about. I definitely agree that we don't have any documentary evidence that protection was one of the drivers behind the garment initially. I also agree that the standard I'm proposing cuts both ways, I'm OK with that.

Really my only issue with the Marks quote is that it is a late recollection that can't be independently confirmed. I don't think that makes it worth it, it just doesn't rise to the level of being able to say that we know Joseph said those things, at least for me.


The problem with using affiliations to gauge dependability is they are almost always historical, never first hand knowledge, and therefore always tainted. Titles, names, positions, degrees, offices, appointments, responsibilities -- they all remove the blindfold from lady justice. They mean almost nothing to me. To consider them, well, I would rather quit thinking because they are all too often a method of deception.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I would think you wouldn't stand for having it both ways. If we worry about the date of Mark's comments, then we must also worry about Joseph's, with respect to the first vision. If you can't accept that, I suggest you are trying to have it both ways, but you have already recognized that, and are watching for it. Personally, I can take both of them at whatever age, but I look for consistency. I see consistency in Marks comments that I do not in Joseph's. It is also consistent with Mark's position against polygamy, and with respect to Joseph's attempts to grab his wife. After Joseph died, we can also see that the pro-poly Brigham would have and certainly did bury that man as fast as he could.

We have also been discussing Kimball's comments in this thread, which were from his journal.

As for requiring independently confirmation, that again calls into question all of Joseph's visions, the witnesses of the BoM, etc.

As you said, that sword does cut both ways.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by jbalm »

ithink wrote:
Hyrcanus wrote:I disagree that affiliations are meaningless. Also, I think the remarks in question from Marks were from an interview as opposed to a journal, but that is a minor quibble I could be mistaken about. I definitely agree that we don't have any documentary evidence that protection was one of the drivers behind the garment initially. I also agree that the standard I'm proposing cuts both ways, I'm OK with that.

Really my only issue with the Marks quote is that it is a late recollection that can't be independently confirmed. I don't think that makes it worth it, it just doesn't rise to the level of being able to say that we know Joseph said those things, at least for me.


The problem with using affiliations to gauge dependability is they are almost always historical, never first hand knowledge, and therefore always tainted. Titles, names, positions, degrees, offices, appointments, responsibilities -- they all remove the blindfold from lady justice. They mean almost nothing to me. To consider them, well, I would rather quit thinking because they are all too often a method of deception.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I would think you wouldn't stand for having it both ways. If we worry about the date of Mark's comments, then we must also worry about Joseph's, with respect to the first vision. If you can't accept that, I suggest you are trying to have it both ways, but you have already recognized that, and are watching for it. Personally, I can take both of them at whatever age, but I look for consistency. I see consistency in Marks comments that I do not in Joseph's. It is also consistent with Mark's position against polygamy, and with respect to Joseph's attempts to grab his wife. After Joseph died, we can also see that the pro-poly Brigham would have and certainly did bury that man as fast as he could.

We have also been discussing Kimball's comments in this thread, which were from his journal.

As for requiring independently confirmation, that again calls into question all of Joseph's visions, the witnesses of the BoM, etc.

As you said, that sword does cut both ways.
Edit: Nevermind.

User avatar
clarkkent14
LBFOJ
Posts: 1973
Location: Southern Utah
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by clarkkent14 »

LouiseLane13 wrote:This is my first post. I’m hoping I posted this in the right place. I don’t really know how to explain but lately I’ve been feeling that I don’t wish to wear my garments anymore. I feel that I need to reflect on why I actually wear them and not worry so much about what others think. I don’t know if I truly understand. I feel that I get caught up in thinking what others might think if I stop wearing my garments (not that I plan to dress too crazy or anything). I really don’t think I should be caring what others think. If wearing them because everyone else is and because we are supposed to is my reasoning, I don’t feel it’s right.

I know I haven’t been the most spiritual person lately. I don’t read my scriptures and I only pray once a day. I find myself questioning what I really do believe. (*Side note I am a convert. Technically I have been LDS since I was baptized at 9 but I only attended church a handful of times growing up and my parents weren’t LDS. I have only been active for maybe 3 years and even now I don’t know if I’m technically ‘active’). I’m so thankful that I didn’t grow up in the LDS culture (no offense to anyone who has enjoyed being a part of it). Before I never focused on clothes or piercings or tattoos- I knew and still know that they don’t make a person any better or different or worse than me. I think how we treat people is much more important than the clothes we wear, even if they are garments underneath our clothes.

I hope that this makes sense. Is it wrong to stop wearing them and reflect and read and truly learn about why I feel this way? I would love some words of encouragement or loving advice.
I would encourage you to pray about it. It is your choice. I will support you either way. Perhaps it will be an opportunity to learn and grow.

You might have noticed... your thread has turned into something other than your OP. Get used to that.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by freedomforall »

ithink wrote:
freedomforall wrote:If an angel appears, reach out your hand and ask to shake their hand.

Doctrine and Covenants 129:4-9
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

When receiving answers to prayers:

Doctrine and Covenants 8:2
2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

These are ways of being certain one is getting correct information from God.
That is pure RUBBISH. Joseph asserted that the same angel that appeared with a sword and commanded him to legally adulterate was the same one that appeared to him from the beginning. Later, he renounced that and said he was "deceived". If so, it is not possible a true messenger from God can deliver positive messages, then go wrong so badly.

Joseph said if his error was not put down abruptly, it would ruin the Church. Now there is a prophecy for you. It is clear that practice was not put down abruptly, it continued on covertly and then overtly for decades and decades under the Brighamites, but the damage it did is just beginning to take hold now.

Joseph's method for discerning by hand clasping failed him, and it will fail you too.

As for the other method, with promptings and ideas, and feelings. Look, I haven't darkened the door of the chapel for nearly two years. What "inspiration" I ever had hasn't let up one iota. I get all kinds of promptings, ideas, and sentences. What "knowledge" I think I receive, has to be measured against what I already know. And I'm far enough down the line to accept anything from any source if I perceive it to be true, while I just as easily reject anything from anyone if it's perceived (by me) to be not. This privilege is granted to all men. Some tune into it better than others, but it is there for everyone. You and I and everyone else have a spiritual connection that can be easily cultivated with or without a bricks and mortar church of any shape or form.

The key though is that such promptings are not for anyone else but me. I can say anything I want, and anyone else can agree or disagree, but as soon as someone thinks I'm a seer or a prophet, there is the fatal mistake right at the start.

Believe in your self, your "I am", and you will be fine.
This comes right out of scripture, so you are calling these scriptures rubbish?
What happened to "I have a different view? Or, "I don't quite agree with this?
Your choice of words weren't nice, at all. And as I was told, being "nice" is rule #1

User avatar
Hyrcanus
captain of 100
Posts: 716

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by Hyrcanus »

ithink wrote:
Hyrcanus wrote:I disagree that affiliations are meaningless. Also, I think the remarks in question from Marks were from an interview as opposed to a journal, but that is a minor quibble I could be mistaken about. I definitely agree that we don't have any documentary evidence that protection was one of the drivers behind the garment initially. I also agree that the standard I'm proposing cuts both ways, I'm OK with that.

Really my only issue with the Marks quote is that it is a late recollection that can't be independently confirmed. I don't think that makes it worth it, it just doesn't rise to the level of being able to say that we know Joseph said those things, at least for me.


The problem with using affiliations to gauge dependability is they are almost always historical, never first hand knowledge, and therefore always tainted. Titles, names, positions, degrees, offices, appointments, responsibilities -- they all remove the blindfold from lady justice. They mean almost nothing to me. To consider them, well, I would rather quit thinking because they are all too often a method of deception.
We may just have to agree to disagree on weighing affiliations. It seems apparent to me that they have merit. I think it is beyond question that people interpret their experiences through the lens of their current circumstances. It's apparent even on this board, as you read people's posts over time, you can see their interpretation of their own experiences changing as their current beliefs evolve. I don't begrudge historical figures their affiliations, I just factor them into my consideration of their statements. A perfect example of why I think this matters is the infamous Thomas B. Marsh "Milk Strippings" story propagated by George A. Smith (IIRC), I give it very little weight because it was a late recollection colored by his own affiliation with the Utah church. No contemporary accounts confirm the story. I don't intend that as a perfect analog to Marks (although it does have some similarities), just as an illustration of what I have in mind.
ithink wrote:You seem like a reasonable person, so I would think you wouldn't stand for having it both ways. If we worry about the date of Mark's comments, then we must also worry about Joseph's, with respect to the first vision. If you can't accept that, I suggest you are trying to have it both ways, but you have already recognized that, and are watching for it. Personally, I can take both of them at whatever age, but I look for consistency. I see consistency in Marks comments that I do not in Joseph's. It is also consistent with Mark's position against polygamy, and with respect to Joseph's attempts to grab his wife. After Joseph died, we can also see that the pro-poly Brigham would have and certainly did bury that man as fast as he could.
Absolutely agree that the first vision suffers from the same issue that Mark's statement does (and several other issues). I don't discount either altogether, but I do question both.
ithink wrote:We have also been discussing Kimball's comments in this thread, which were from his journal.

As for requiring independently confirmation, that again calls into question all of Joseph's visions, the witnesses of the BoM, etc.

As you said, that sword does cut both ways.
100% agree on all of this. I've felt for quite awhile the resting the claims of the truthfulness of the Church on events like the First Vision is problematic. I absolutely use the same standard as applied to the LDS Church. Not that it should matter, but just for context in terms of my current position, I have lots of major historical issues with the LDS church.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

clarkkent14 wrote:You might have noticed... your thread has turned into something other than your OP. Get used to that.
Actually, tracing the history of the garment is a good way to get a grasp on church history in general. What you think you know, what you haven't been told, what they don't want you to think about: it's a good case study. So her gut feeling to question her garments is a good thing.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

freedomforall wrote:This comes right out of scripture, so you are calling these scriptures rubbish?
Yes, identifying messengers by handshake is nonsense.
freedomforall wrote: What happened to "I have a different view? Or, "I don't quite agree with this?
The point of the forum is not to reach a homogenization of consensus, it never was intended that way. I'm happy to see you comment here, and I don't really care if anyone agrees or disagrees with me. The victory for me is not in "conversion" one way or another, it is the dissemination of "truth", as close to it as we can get. That is the victory.
freedomforall wrote: Your choice of words weren't nice, at all. And as I was told, being "nice" is rule #1
I'm expressing my position on the matter. I sincerely appreciate yours.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

Hyrcanus wrote:We may just have to agree to disagree on weighing affiliations. It seems apparent to me that they have merit. I think it is beyond question that people interpret their experiences through the lens of their current circumstances. It's apparent even on this board, as you read people's posts over time, you can see their interpretation of their own experiences changing as their current beliefs evolve. I don't begrudge historical figures their affiliations, I just factor them into my consideration of their statements. A perfect example of why I think this matters is the infamous Thomas B. Marsh "Milk Strippings" story propagated by George A. Smith (IIRC), I give it very little weight because it was a late recollection colored by his own affiliation with the Utah church. No contemporary accounts confirm the story. I don't intend that as a perfect analog to Marks (although it does have some similarities), just as an illustration of what I have in mind.
I have to confess I actually do measure the commentary of an individual based on who they are. But I do it quite opposite to most:
“A man must consider what a blindman's-buff is this game of conformity. If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that, with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution, he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side, — the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? He is a retained attorney, and these airs of the bench are the emptiest affectation. Well, most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right. Meantime nature is not slow to equip us in the prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere. We come to wear one cut of face and figure, and acquire by degrees the gentlest asinine expression.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance and Other Essays)
Interesting that would mention the milk strippings story. As you say, that Marsh went apostate because of that is hokum in it's extreme. (http://history.lds.org/article/revelati ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Marsh's only two sins were failing to join in the calumny of things like burning towns with the Danites (Gallatin), and of course being unable to ascend to the level of pride of Brigham Young:
... He [Marsh] has told you that he is an old man. Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congregation that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men. ... When Brother Thomas thought of returning to the Church, the plurality of wives troubled him a good deal. Look at him. Do you think it need to? I do not; for I doubt whether he could get one wife. Why it should have troubled an infirm old man like him is not for me to say. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 5: 210)
Thx for chatting.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by freedomforall »

ithink wrote:
freedomforall wrote:So, do you say that people going to the temple and having them told that the garment is a protection...is a lie being told them?
If it is protection, from what? Adultery? Many have committed that with them on. From physical harm? Many have been injured and killed with them on. From possession? Many are possessed with them on.

If they are protection, then from what??
It seems the sub culture has stories running around about "protection" the garment has provided. Burn stories mostly. But never any stories of prevention of ampitation, oddly.

If there is any protection from anything with them on, it is only in the head of the believer. But of course there is fear in that same mind too, that if you take them off, you are subject to possession, and many other ills, but that is pure hokum.
Go back and read my account of a vacation I was on years ago, and see for yourself what the wearing of garments can do...if we believe. Faith is essential. Mocking will never bring the mysteries of God to light, nor any enlightening understanding.
As far as "possession" is concerned, any person that believes in Christ and strives to do according to his examples unto us, and has faith... can demand Satan to depart. There again, faith is key. Even Christ was approached be Satan and was tempted. Christ simply said, get thee hence, and Satan departed. Faith, faith, faith, faith! Is having fear of being possessed a display of faith?

Faith is the moving cause of all action.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

freedomforall wrote:Go back and read my account of a vacation I was on years ago, and see for yourself what the wearing of garments can do...if we believe. Faith is essential. Mocking will never bring the mysteries of God to light, nor any enlightening understanding.
As far as "possession" is concerned, any person that believes in Christ and strives to do according to his examples unto us, and has faith... can demand Satan to depart. There again, faith is key. Even Christ was approached be Satan and was tempted. Christ simply said, get thee hence, and Satan departed. Faith, faith, faith, faith! Is having fear of being possessed a display of faith?

Faith is the moving cause of all action.
I appreciate your response, but I'm totally lost as to the point you are trying to make.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by freedomforall »

ithink wrote:
freedomforall wrote:Go back and read my account of a vacation I was on years ago, and see for yourself what the wearing of garments can do...if we believe. Faith is essential. Mocking will never bring the mysteries of God to light, nor any enlightening understanding.
As far as "possession" is concerned, any person that believes in Christ and strives to do according to his examples unto us, and has faith... can demand Satan to depart. There again, faith is key. Even Christ was approached be Satan and was tempted. Christ simply said, get thee hence, and Satan departed. Faith, faith, faith, faith! Is having fear of being possessed a display of faith?

Faith is the moving cause of all action.
I appreciate your response, but I'm totally lost as to the point you are trying to make.
I'm sorry. The wording in your post came across as sarcastic. Like, "protection from what??" I would hope that you would realize that if a person is in tune to some degree with the promptings of the HG, one can be told when to wear them because of impending danger like I was while on vacation. I am very grateful for that warning. I am also grateful I didn't shrug it off and have the boy drown instead of being near enough to me to be able to latch on for dear life.
ithink wrote:If it is protection, from what? Adultery? Many have committed that with them on. From physical harm? Many have been injured and killed with them on. From possession? Many are possessed with them on.
If they are protection, then from what?

It seems the sub culture has stories running around about "protection" the garment has provided. Burn stories mostly. But never any stories of prevention of ampitation, oddly.

If there is any protection from anything with them on, it is only in the head of the believer. But of course there is fear in that same mind too, that if you take them off, you are subject to possession, and many other ills, but that is pure hokum.
The biggest protection one can have is that by wearing them, they are a constant reminder as to the covenants and promises made by the wearer. When a person takes them seriously, they think twice about committing adultery, and many other temptations. However, many people may use their agency and commit sin anyway. That is their choice. But the garment can help people to stay on the path. It is called faith and obedience.

I hope this clears it up some.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

freedomforall wrote:I'm sorry. The wording in your post came across as sarcastic. Like, "protection from what??" I would hope that you would realize that if a person is in tune to some degree with the promptings of the HG, one can be told when to wear them because of impending danger like I was while on vacation. I am very grateful for that warning. I am also grateful I didn't shrug it off and have the boy drown instead of being near enough to me to be able to latch on for dear life.
ithink wrote:If it is protection, from what? Adultery? Many have committed that with them on. From physical harm? Many have been injured and killed with them on. From possession? Many are possessed with them on.
If they are protection, then from what?

It seems the sub culture has stories running around about "protection" the garment has provided. Burn stories mostly. But never any stories of prevention of ampitation, oddly.

If there is any protection from anything with them on, it is only in the head of the believer. But of course there is fear in that same mind too, that if you take them off, you are subject to possession, and many other ills, but that is pure hokum.
The biggest protection one can have is that by wearing them, they are a constant reminder as to the covenants and promises made by the wearer. When a person takes them seriously, they think twice about committing adultery, and many other temptations. However, many people may use their agency and commit sin anyway. That is their choice. But the garment can help people to stay on the path. It is called faith and obedience.

I hope this clears it up some.
I see where you are coming from. But as for protection, the idea that they protect is originally from Richards, who had them on while all the rest didn't: and only on the advice of Joseph himself. So, why wasn't the prophet Joseph inspired enough to keep them on, as protective as kevlar? And in his counsel to the others to take them off, isn't he then responsible for their deaths also?

And I do recall Richards wasn't even shot, while Taylor and his watch were injured but not killed. And it seems now that it wasn't a bullet that hit his watch, but him falling against the window sill.

So it all appears to be a myth, in terms of bullets and such. But I concur that they can represent something in the mind of the wearer, but again, the idea that they guard against adultery still a modern notion -- one that didn't stop Joseph or Brigham from getting as many women as they wanted.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by freedomforall »

ithink wrote:
freedomforall wrote:I'm sorry. The wording in your post came across as sarcastic. Like, "protection from what??" I would hope that you would realize that if a person is in tune to some degree with the promptings of the HG, one can be told when to wear them because of impending danger like I was while on vacation. I am very grateful for that warning. I am also grateful I didn't shrug it off and have the boy drown instead of being near enough to me to be able to latch on for dear life.
ithink wrote:If it is protection, from what? Adultery? Many have committed that with them on. From physical harm? Many have been injured and killed with them on. From possession? Many are possessed with them on.
If they are protection, then from what?

It seems the sub culture has stories running around about "protection" the garment has provided. Burn stories mostly. But never any stories of prevention of ampitation, oddly.

If there is any protection from anything with them on, it is only in the head of the believer. But of course there is fear in that same mind too, that if you take them off, you are subject to possession, and many other ills, but that is pure hokum.
The biggest protection one can have is that by wearing them, they are a constant reminder as to the covenants and promises made by the wearer. When a person takes them seriously, they think twice about committing adultery, and many other temptations. However, many people may use their agency and commit sin anyway. That is their choice. But the garment can help people to stay on the path. It is called faith and obedience.

I hope this clears it up some.
I see where you are coming from. But as for protection, the idea that they protect is originally from Richards, who had them on while all the rest didn't: and only on the advice of Joseph himself. So, why wasn't the prophet Joseph inspired enough to keep them on, as protective as kevlar? And in his counsel to the others to take them off, isn't he then responsible for their deaths also?

And I do recall Richards wasn't even shot, while Taylor and his watch were injured but not killed. And it seems now that it wasn't a bullet that hit his watch, but him falling against the window sill.

So it all appears to be a myth, in terms of bullets and such. But I concur that they can represent something in the mind of the wearer, but again, the idea that they guard against adultery still a modern notion -- one that didn't stop Joseph or Brigham from getting as many women as they wanted.
Although each person is unique, every single person in life being in their own sphere of mishaps, trials and events, IMO, it is all dependent on the faithfulness, dedication, commitment and beliefs of the wearer.
I was prompted to put my garments on and then later found out why. Had I not heeded the prompting, something very bad could have unsued. I cannot speak for anyone else. There are too many variables, too many "what if's", and too much questioning for any of us to judge as to why one person may have protection and another not. My experience was unique to me, and only me, but it did involve garments for whatever reason. I obeyed, and that's what counts.
What happens to others around us is not our concern, nor does it save us. It is each of us as an individual that has to either obey or disobey any promptings unique to us. We must try to have virtue garnish our thoughts, our works to be for the glorifying of God, and to be holy and spotless before the Lord. Then we are on the right track for whatever blessings God deems to bestow on His children.

This is my POV.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by ithink »

freedomforall wrote:Although each person is unique, every single person in life being in their own sphere of mishaps, trials and events, IMO, it is all dependent on the faithfulness, dedication, commitment and beliefs of the wearer.
I was prompted to put my garments on and then later found out why. Had I not heeded the prompting, something very bad could have unsued. I cannot speak for anyone else. There are too many variables, too many "what if's", and too much questioning for any of us to judge as to why one person may have protection and another not. My experience was unique to me, and only me, but it did involve garments for whatever reason. I obeyed, and that's what counts.
What happens to others around us is not our concern, nor does it save us. It is each of us as an individual that has to either obey or disobey any promptings unique to us. We must try to have virtue garnish our thoughts, our works to be for the glorifying of God, and to be holy and spotless before the Lord. Then we are on the right track for whatever blessings God deems to bestow on His children.

This is my POV.
I appreciate your views. I do think though that what happens to others around us is our business. Someone once asked if he was his brother's keeper. Someone else talked about loving one's neighbor. As yourself.

Those rules are all that seem to apply, and I think they trump everything else.

Everything.

That is where I am at, but I still respect your views.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Questioning my Garments

Post by KMCopeland »

We all look for the telltale signs, don't we? The little sleeve that shows -- the distinctive curve of garment necklines. But temple garments were never intended to be status symbols like that.

Try not wearing them for a while. Then wear them again. If you feel good when you put them back on (which I think you will), then you'll be wearing them for yourself. Which is the only reason you should.

Post Reply