Question about garments-Ladies only please

A place for conservative women to discuss true women's liberation, the role of women in healing America, the truth about feminism and more...

Bra under or over?

Under
21
25%
Over
62
75%
 
Total votes: 83

User avatar
Bee Prepared
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Bee Prepared » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:53 pm

rewcox wrote:
Bee Prepared wrote:Why? I did the wash, I don't need his bottoms!
Ok, washing is like baptism, it cleans things. What soap did you use?
I make a heavy duty laundry soap. It even removes racing stripes.

Image

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6613
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:15 pm
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby A Random Phrase » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:55 am

Bee Prepared wrote:
rewcox wrote:
lgr3065 wrote:Oh, how I wish there was a thanks button. Thanks, Lizzy. Certainly NOT the Bishop, counselor, or S Pres or counselors business!!!!
I've haven't had success with women's garments either...
I died laughing when I saw you on the " Women Only" OP. One time I had no clean garments, so I wore my husbands bottoms, am I in violation?
Women Only discussions on here always get infiltrated by some men. 8-| The posts can be entertaining, though (and sometimes useful).
- - Toni


Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief.

Convertapril
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:48 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Convertapril » Sun May 03, 2015 9:50 pm

Thank you all. Sometimes my husband puts off the "guilty" vibe with me for not wearing them all 24/7. I try, and yes yeast and BV have ran ramped with me when I wear Garment bottoms constantly. So I pick and choose and wear them part time and I don't seem to have as many problems. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels or has this issue. I live in a small Branch so we all know each other quite well, going to the branch President whom is a friend to visit about garment bottoms doesn't sound fun ;)

Happycamper
captain of 10
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:01 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Happycamper » Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:38 pm

When I know I will be getting hot and sweaty, like when I go running or hiking, I wear a sports bra underneath, otherwise my garment top gets soaked and it's so uncomfortable. The day I learned I could do this from a temple-worker friend, was a blessed day! And when it's really warm and I'm going for a run, the garments stay off till after my shower. Now I just wish the symbols could be stamped on in some way, instead of sewn on, so they don't show through the outer clothes. Men don't have do deal with this...... why should we?

User avatar
Beanpicker
captain of 50
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:50 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Beanpicker » Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:39 pm

lgr3065 wrote:Historically garments were NOT worn all the time (more for temple ceremony), this is a modern day change. There is no revelation or commandment that you were them all the time. It is a teaching. Nice to heed, if possible-the promises are comforting but again not scriptural (Adam and Eve were given a garment by the Lord directly not by a man representing the Lord (who does not know you or your health concerns) and we are not told much about how our first parents were instructed) The recommend interview remains us of that teaching. Pray about it, like ARP above stated-work it out between you and God. Is it wise or healthy to use substances that our bodies are allergic to? I know of lots of women (me included) where yeast infections abound within the climate of the garment (cotton-sometimes not so bad). The expense can be costly to treat these infections and other major health issues can develop-it can be a serious problem not to be treated lightly. So, be a wise servant. Ask God. (my points may have been pointed out earlier in the thread-if so, I apologize)
Thank you lgr for that. I was getting really uncomfortable reading this thread.

I have a very similar opinion. I agree that historically garments were just meant for temple worship, and we have had NO revelations to us to do it differently in any way. So many things have evolved in the church - I'm certain that it was with good intentions. I have been thinking a lot about how we, as a church, have taken garment wearing and made it something it was not originally intended to be. We have been told of a promise of protection over us by wearing our garments throughout our lives. Does anyone have a reference to this promise? It would have to be from the Lord in order to promise us divine protection. One other thought - if this promise did not originate from the Lord, then in my mind this is a form of idolatry. Garments are a symbol only - any power would come from faith in Christ.

Ok, carry on. Don't mind me.
Sandy Skinner

Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

lgr3065
captain of 100
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:59 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby lgr3065 » Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:01 am

I have not seen any scripture as far as protection-but I am not well versed. It is given as part of the instruction in the washings/anoitings. IMO it has to do more with one's faith and of course, the will of the Lord. I have known few that have been killed while wearing their garments and I, for one, received no significant harm after being hit by a car while i was walking in a cross walk. Was it the garments? probably not but it is a nice thought. More likely my prayer of faith for protection that day. Loretta

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6026
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby rewcox » Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:11 am

Bee wears her garment with a smile. :)
image.jpg
image.jpg (28.67 KiB) Viewed 14537 times

User avatar
Bee Prepared
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Bee Prepared » Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:32 am

I don't wear a bra, I like that free feeling! Haha, j/k. I like the garment next to my skin, it is a protection.

User avatar
Beanpicker
captain of 50
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:50 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Beanpicker » Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:42 pm

This ex -bishop responded to a blog on garment wearing. I think his comment was full of truth. However, most LDS follow blindly without questioning.
Speaking as a former Bishop and a faithful, active member of the LDS church, the only reason – the ONLY reason – I can see for wearing garments at all is to faithfully satisfy a draconian requirement imposed blindly by good people who assume, incorrectly, that God cares if we do it or not. I wear the garment day and night and all that. But if it’s a commandment or a revealed principle, then I would love someone to show me when the revelation was given, to whom it was given, and what the exact words of the revelation were. If there’s some revealed or authoritative basis for the ridiculous rules about what underwear I should wear, then show me the revelation.

Even if we assume (without citation or any offer or proof or even explicit allegation I’m aware of) that the temple ceremony itself is a revealed rite, the temple ceremony doesn’t contain ANY of those stupid rules. It says nothing about modesty. Nothing about when or how the garment should be worn. Nothing about altering it, nothing about the cut or design. Nothing. No revelation I’m aware of contains any of that, and no ceremony does, either. As a Bishop, when I read the statement about wearing the garment day & night as instructed, I read it literally: Because the temple does not instruct that the garment should be worn day and night and contains no instructions whatsoever about when or how the garment should be worn, members should feel no obligation to wear them in any particular way. I did not expound along those lines, of course, but simply read the statement to members and left it up to them to interpret it – hoping the light to go on in their head to realize how stupid garment rules are in the context of what is actually in the temple instructions.

We talk about wearing the garment “as instructed.” As instructed by whom, when, and by what authority? If we eliminate every garment-related instruction given outside the temple liturgy, I am under no obligation or covenant to buy or wear garments at all – the temple does not tell me to buy more or to wear them every day. All it tells me is to wear it “throughout my life.” I’ve done plenty of things throughout my life that I don’t do everyday or even every year. I can make my own to any pattern I desire. I can buy commercially-available underwear and put marks on it however I want. In fact, I can just wear it when I go to the temple, and consider that to constitute wearing it “throughout my life.” I’ve filed a federal income tax return throughout my life – that’s once a year. And if we eliminate every garment-related instruction given without citation to revelation, then we eliminate the temple liturgy, as well, since it is, as far as I can tell, not a revelation, cannot be cited or relied on in analysis of doctrine, and is not open for debate at all.

I wear the garment because I’m a Mormon and I’m part of Mormon culture and, ultimately, I’m willing to put up with it because I don’t want to put up with the flak I’d get if I didn’t wear it. I don’t want my wife, family, and friends to think I’ve lost my faith and, for cultural reasons, I don’t want church leaders and others to think I’m “disobedient” (though really, I think it’s virtuous to disobey unrighteous commands, so maybe I should be true to myself instead of obeying nonsense). But the Church has given me no reason to believe that the garment is anything more than a ridiculous cultural artifact with no doctrinal support that continues as part of our church because millions of people are willing to simultaneously claim reliance on revelation and also believe every stupid little thing anyone in authority ever says without ever questioning whether there’s even an allegation of divine direction.

Just imagine how much stupid garbage in the Church we could eliminate just by refusing to believe in or follow any instruction not accompanied by a citation to an actual revelation. “You have to wear Church-made underwear” is such a ridiculous, oppressive, and obviously wrong thing that it should surprise no one to learn that – in a church that prides itself on being the recipient of ongoing revelation and divine guidance – there is not even an ALLEGATION that that particular dogma actually came from God at all.
This was from a 2013 post on bycommonconsent.com entitled "Female Garments: The Underwear Business"
Sandy Skinner

Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8712
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:14 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Fiannan » Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:48 am

Humans are by nature tribal and so in a way garments are a rite of passage into the higher levels of our tribe. This is not to say this is a man-made thing, just that garments serve a sociological purpose. I will note that unless I am exercising or at the beach I wear garments, a bit more often than my wife, but I do not think God will count it against us if we don't always wear them. That of course is my personal opinion, and of course being aware that the early leaders of the Church, and the general membership, only wore them when they were doing temple work.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato

User avatar
Bee Prepared
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Bee Prepared » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:43 pm

rewcox wrote:Bee wears her garment with a smile. :)
image.jpg
I'm just happy they aren't 1 piece anymore, I don't smile when I have a snuggy. :ymblushing:

hismrsfinnegan
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:29 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby hismrsfinnegan » Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:03 am

nutmeg wrote:
SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:on I have begun to think more about whether it is proper to wear a brassiere under or over the garment top? Honestly it seems it should just be incorporated into the top, but alas...


I would also love them to just start incorporating the bra in! i guess it might be hard because there are so many different bra sizes but man, that would be so awesome! i am forever adjusting my bra and garment shoulders, if they would just make it the same thing it would be so great. especially for nursing! goodness, i'm
tempted to write to Beehive Clothing.

Ok ladies please promise not to get mad at me but I just do not wear one except when I have to get really dressed up. I was blessed to have reduction surgery after a car accdent left me in constant pain. I wear my garments without be cause I had a plastic surgeon who was an artist and I went from a DD to a B. Besides I can
understand your frustration, but seriously, how do you cope when it's over 100 degrees outside?

Laffy
captain of 10
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Laffy » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:28 pm

Here is my 2 cents worth

I think we always can run into trouble when we quote that “this Temple worker said this” and another Temple worked said another thing, and so forth.
My understanding is that for both men and women you should were the garment as often as possible. I also think you should try to wear it next to the skin as much as possible. And although this conversation has been related to women (breasts, menstruation) it can also be applied to men. For example, what about a man wearing a jock-strap related to physical activity - -should the garment be over or under?

Although I think too many people – both men and women – are too quick to wear it over and need to trouble themselves more so (e.g., women who report having larger breasts) there are times where with a sincere heart that a person may have to wear the garment over clothing - -such as related medical conditions.

ihavegills
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:50 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby ihavegills » Tue May 17, 2016 7:05 am

I am actually not baptized yet. I have read the book of Mormon and have been in communication with missionaries. Actually I previously lived with someone who did not want missionaries over and getting them to meet me in a public place was too difficult. I would actually be excited about wearing garments but I'm not encouraged as I'm an unusual size for regular clothing. I'm overweight (look pregnant) have a bust of about 47D, I'm 6 foot tall. I would say I wear a women's 9 in underwear and a men's XL for sweatpants. They say they are there to help you out with this but I'm like, "This is going to be terrific." CAN YOU wear mens garments if you are an unusual size? I'm very tall and chubby. If I buy a mans tee shirt I get a 2XL. I'm really kind of worried about it. I've seen more modern garments that seem like I'd be comfortable in them but again I often wear mens sweats and tee shirts because i can't find other clothes away from Lane Bryant. I would assume this would be a more modern type store in terms of sizing but I spoke to someone at the store and my guess is that it will be more difficult than buying underwear at Target.

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6613
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:15 pm
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby A Random Phrase » Sat May 21, 2016 1:59 pm

I think they would not like you to wear men's garments, though I have heard of women wearing their husband's sometimes (I forget the reason, but it was not just "for fun").
- - Toni


Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief.

User avatar
Matchmaker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Matchmaker » Sat May 21, 2016 2:34 pm

All my life I have worn my garment under my bra. Years ago I asked a matron in the temple about it, and she said to wear my bra over my garments. My bra is extra uncomfortable and ill-fitting as a result of wearing it this way. I would like to know where her counsel came from. It must be written somewhere. I am going to make it a mission of mine to find out.

User avatar
A Random Phrase
Follower of Christ
Posts: 6613
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:15 pm
Location: Staring at my computer, not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby A Random Phrase » Sat May 21, 2016 2:51 pm

Let us know what you find out, Matchmaker.
- - Toni


Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby TrueIntent » Tue May 31, 2016 9:48 am

Laffy wrote:Here is my 2 cents worth

I think we always can run into trouble when we quote that “this Temple worker said this” and another Temple worked said another thing, and so forth.
My understanding is that for both men and women you should were the garment as often as possible. I also think you should try to wear it next to the skin as much as possible. And although this conversation has been related to women (breasts, menstruation) it can also be applied to men. For example, what about a man wearing a jock-strap related to physical activity - -should the garment be over or under?

Although I think too many people – both men and women – are too quick to wear it over and need to trouble themselves more so (e.g., women who report having larger breasts) there are times where with a sincere heart that a person may have to wear the garment over clothing - -such as related medical conditions.
I was a temple worker about 7 years ago, and I was told that it was an old directive to wear the garment touching the skin, and that it was appropriate that women could wear their bra and panties under the garment. I was also told this when I went through for my endowments about 10 years ago, you are now allowed to wear underwear under the Garment. I think this is the problem, where is the revelation given? Where is the official handbook that explains the garment? There isn't one, and that's why we constantly change the "Rules". They are man-made rules. My recent study of church history is taught me this. Pray about it. Go to father and he'll tell you what to do :-) I now look at these discussions as just plain silly that we even have to have them......beehive industries recently altered the garment with a lower waist and different style top, to accommodate LDS women from a survey that they (beehive industries) gave them. So basically beehive industries can decide to alter the garment based on the survey answered by us, but we can't alter the garment when we want a more comfortable fit . Where's the revelation in that? We need to start thinking for ourselves and using common sense. Commonsense has been thrown out the window. Pray about it .

On a sidenote, I have a friend who got in trouble for having a professional alterations person lower the waistline of her garments. That was two years ago, now behive industries does it for us. But they don't get in trouble, and there was no revelation to behive industries, the "revelation" came from a survey of women from the church. Use your brains people .

Nikita629
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 1:39 am
Location: Noida
Contact:

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Nikita629 » Tue May 09, 2017 1:51 am

Thanks for the helpful stuffs.

Gage
captain of 100
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:58 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Gage » Wed May 10, 2017 8:25 am

Its funny to hear members go back and forth about their garments. If it is something that other members can see the other doing you better believe members are going to be doing it. Never mind what you are doing while wearing the garments, all it matters is that they are on and other members know that they are on. Never mind that you lied to the Bishop to get your temple recommend, thats ok all that matters is you are seen there and everyone knows your garments are on. You have a new member worried how their garments are going to fit, I mean really worried, probably not worried at all about living the gospel and if they can stay faithful. Just worried about those garments. If it wasnt such a social symbol that people make it, I doubt many members would wear them at all. I know many members that should not hold a temple recommend, they lied like many others to get it, but you better believe their garments are always on.

User avatar
Matchmaker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Matchmaker » Wed May 10, 2017 9:06 am

Beanpicker wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:42 pm
This ex -bishop responded to a blog on garment wearing. I think his comment was full of truth. However, most LDS follow blindly without questioning.
Speaking as a former Bishop and a faithful, active member of the LDS church, the only reason – the ONLY reason – I can see for wearing garments at all is to faithfully satisfy a draconian requirement imposed blindly by good people who assume, incorrectly, that God cares if we do it or not. I wear the garment day and night and all that. But if it’s a commandment or a revealed principle, then I would love someone to show me when the revelation was given, to whom it was given, and what the exact words of the revelation were. If there’s some revealed or authoritative basis for the ridiculous rules about what underwear I should wear, then show me the revelation.

Even if we assume (without citation or any offer or proof or even explicit allegation I’m aware of) that the temple ceremony itself is a revealed rite, the temple ceremony doesn’t contain ANY of those stupid rules. It says nothing about modesty. Nothing about when or how the garment should be worn. Nothing about altering it, nothing about the cut or design. Nothing. No revelation I’m aware of contains any of that, and no ceremony does, either. As a Bishop, when I read the statement about wearing the garment day & night as instructed, I read it literally: Because the temple does not instruct that the garment should be worn day and night and contains no instructions whatsoever about when or how the garment should be worn, members should feel no obligation to wear them in any particular way. I did not expound along those lines, of course, but simply read the statement to members and left it up to them to interpret it – hoping the light to go on in their head to realize how stupid garment rules are in the context of what is actually in the temple instructions.

We talk about wearing the garment “as instructed.” As instructed by whom, when, and by what authority? If we eliminate every garment-related instruction given outside the temple liturgy, I am under no obligation or covenant to buy or wear garments at all – the temple does not tell me to buy more or to wear them every day. All it tells me is to wear it “throughout my life.” I’ve done plenty of things throughout my life that I don’t do everyday or even every year. I can make my own to any pattern I desire. I can buy commercially-available underwear and put marks on it however I want. In fact, I can just wear it when I go to the temple, and consider that to constitute wearing it “throughout my life.” I’ve filed a federal income tax return throughout my life – that’s once a year. And if we eliminate every garment-related instruction given without citation to revelation, then we eliminate the temple liturgy, as well, since it is, as far as I can tell, not a revelation, cannot be cited or relied on in analysis of doctrine, and is not open for debate at all.

I wear the garment because I’m a Mormon and I’m part of Mormon culture and, ultimately, I’m willing to put up with it because I don’t want to put up with the flak I’d get if I didn’t wear it. I don’t want my wife, family, and friends to think I’ve lost my faith and, for cultural reasons, I don’t want church leaders and others to think I’m “disobedient” (though really, I think it’s virtuous to disobey unrighteous commands, so maybe I should be true to myself instead of obeying nonsense). But the Church has given me no reason to believe that the garment is anything more than a ridiculous cultural artifact with no doctrinal support that continues as part of our church because millions of people are willing to simultaneously claim reliance on revelation and also believe every stupid little thing anyone in authority ever says without ever questioning whether there’s even an allegation of divine direction.

Just imagine how much stupid garbage in the Church we could eliminate just by refusing to believe in or follow any instruction not accompanied by a citation to an actual revelation. “You have to wear Church-made underwear” is such a ridiculous, oppressive, and obviously wrong thing that it should surprise no one to learn that – in a church that prides itself on being the recipient of ongoing revelation and divine guidance – there is not even an ALLEGATION that that particular dogma actually came from God at all.
This was from a 2013 post on bycommonconsent.com entitled "Female Garments: The Underwear Business"
I can almost understand why this guy is no longer an active Bishop. I got such an uncomfortable feeling reading what he wrote.

Heth
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:06 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Heth » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:11 pm

Matchmaker - it seems to me this Bishop is not inactive but rather a former bishop still active in the Church. And I agree with his statement. Sometimes we do stuff because we feel it's unquestionably right but in reality, there is barely any info on how we got to our current ideas about our garments. I think the more information, the better, and that will lead to a more fulfilling and healthy relationship with garnent wearing in general.

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 100
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:27 am
Location: Kolob wannabe

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby kittycat51 » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:39 pm

Heth wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:11 pm
Matchmaker - it seems to me this Bishop is not inactive but rather a former bishop still active in the Church. And I agree with his statement. Sometimes we do stuff because we feel it's unquestionably right but in reality, there is barely any info on how we got to our current ideas about our garments. I think the more information, the better, and that will lead to a more fulfilling and healthy relationship with garnent wearing in general.
I (and we all should who have entered therein) take serious everything that takes place in the temple and associated with those sacred ordinances, this includes the wearing of the temple garment. All you have to do is listen to the very ending of washing and anointings and you will hear all the reasoning in the world why we should be faithful in wearing our garments. They are a vital part of me, and I don't wear garments just to be wearing garments. I would feel rather naked without them...no pun intended.

My father has been a temple sealing for over 30 years. He hears a many fussing mother over their soon to be married daughter that "don't worry dear after the ceremony you won't have to wear the garments". This makes my blood boil. X(

As far as this former bishops still being active, just because he was a bishop doesn't make his views on the topic correct. Many have fallen on the wayside in their thinking, including bishops.
'You'll never medicate your way out of diseases you behave yourself into" ~Dr. Roby Mitchell

SunriseBoy
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:05 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby SunriseBoy » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:18 am

Garments ought to be worn with the diligence, reverence and humility to demonstrate the wearer's intent indeed and in their heart, as to the purpose the Creator meant, when he provided them for Adam and Eve, early in the piece.
Don't choke on the small stuff. Take counsel from the General Authorities, pray, pay your tithing, remember the poor, the sick, the mentally and physically handicapped and the elderly, the frail, and the homeless. Don't choke to death on the jots and tittles!

Cc07
captain of 10
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Cc07 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:32 pm

And in a letter to priesthood leaders dated 10 October 1988, the First Presidency made the following important statements regarding how the garment should be worn:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. This sacred covenant is between the member and the Lord. Members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves any personal questions about the wearing of the garment. … The promise of protection and blessings is conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness in keeping the covenant.

“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. Thus, members should not remove either all or part of the garment to work in the yard or to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. Nor should they remove it to participate in recreational activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath regular clothing. When the garment must be removed, such as for swimming, it should be restored as soon as possible.

“The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn. Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.” 6

Here's your revelation given! If it comes from the First Presidency who are Apostles, seers, and REVELATORS then yes this is revelation and they clearly state how the garment should be worn.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby TrueIntent » Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:18 am

Cc07 wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:32 pm
And in a letter to priesthood leaders dated 10 October 1988, the First Presidency made the following important statements regarding how the garment should be worn:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. This sacred covenant is between the member and the Lord. Members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves any personal questions about the wearing of the garment. … The promise of protection and blessings is conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness in keeping the covenant. (modesty is also a cultural teaching that is NOT necessarily a reflection of someones chastity or motives, but we struggle to acknowledge this too).

“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. Thus, members should not remove either all or part of the garment to work in the yard or to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. Nor should they remove it to participate in recreational activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath regular clothing. When the garment must be removed, such as for swimming, it should be restored as soon as possible.

“The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn. Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.” 6

Here's your revelation given! If it comes from the First Presidency who are Apostles, seers, and REVELATORS then yes this is revelation and they clearly state how the garment should be worn.
The church routinely changes it's position on the wearing of the garment and it's meaning...If you take the time to study records and teachings in journal of discourses and outside resources of the saints up until the present, you will find that "how" the garment is worn is a cultural teaching...and that the "protection" it provides is now being referred to by the church mostly spiritually (refer to an LDSliving.com article posted a little over a week ago).

The garment represent Covenants that one makes between the individual and the Lord....it's the keeping of theses covenants that provides the spiritual and physical protection from the destroyer NOT how one wears the garment. And the wearing of the garment is NOT NECESSARILY a reflection of whether or not someone keeps these covenants--Just as the wearing of a wedding ring is not a reflection necessarily of faithfulness.

If you do not keep the covenants, but wear the garment day and night, you do not have the promise associated with the covenant. If you do keep the covenants you made...you have the promise of spiritual protection REGARDLESS of whether or not you wear the physical cloth garment day and night (this is something the church will not necessarily acknowledge). The garment is merely a symbol. The symbol is not greater than the covenant. Just as the symbol of the temple is not greater than the family unit. Just as Christ said to the Jews who would not acknowledge Him in the temple, that "one who is greater than the temple" was standing there. No amount of temple attendance/work will save a family if an individual has failed to minister to and save the relationships he is already given. Just as with the garment...the covenants are holy...not the cloth itself. We should not worship symbols, but become what the symbol teaches. Ordinances are "types and shadows and patterns".....not the "power" itself. The garment is instruction. PERIOD.

Use your common sense...is it true that the outward practice of a symbol gives power to an individual?...or is it the spiritual practice of a symbol that gives the individual power (did Christ's wearing of his garment give the garment power....OR Did his "becoming" of this symbol give Him power? The individual becomes "clothed with power" So much so that anything HE touches OR that touches HIM has power.... this is why people could be healed by a handkerchief that the apostle Paul carried on his person (joseph smith gave out handkerchiefs to the sick). You can give an outward physical symbol power, but that doesn't mean that the physical wearing of a symbol gives you power....You could also just carry around a bunch of handkerchiefs and pass them out :)....We've got to stop practicing religion like Pharisees....The problem is...when we do Stop...You will see a great sifting of "wheat" and "tares" which is why we, as a church, hesitate to do this. What is truth?????
Last edited by TrueIntent on Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby TrueIntent » Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:26 am

BTW, the brethren receive revelation for the church...NOT individuals. The body of the church usually moves at a slower rate in understanding than those who are willing to seek and ask themselves (this is the pattern in scripture and the history of the church). When we start seeking and asking as a body...the brethren will begin teaching it. It's the old ship zion right?? Are we willing to begin asking questions that may require us to repent of an old belief for more understanding. We know that there are differently levels of knowledge and understanding. ...if we aren't Zion now, what do we need to do to become Zion? How do we usher in His coming? Those are questions we should be willing to ask as individuals....the body of the church may need to "wear the garment day an night"....but that is not a reflection of righteousness, or wisdom, or knowledge....The scriptures teach a different understanding. When are we going to turn back to God? When are we going to face Him?

Cc07
captain of 10
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Cc07 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:51 pm

We are specifically told in the instruction of how we should wear the garment. Just recently as I was renewing my temple recommend the counselor in the stake presidency read me a letter from the First Presideny re iterating that we should wear the garment day and night and then re asked the question if I was wearing my garments as told me from when I received them. I highly doubt the Lord is going to tell you it's ok to not wear them when it's given as a revelation through the first presidency of how we should wear them. You aren't keeping your covenants if you aren't wearing the garment properly. Part of the covenants you make is a physical symbol- yes it's part of it- of wearing the garment. You can't pick and choose. I do agree with you in saying if you aren't keeping your covenants then the garment essentially means nothing. But you are wrong in saying you can keep your covenants and not wear the garment because they go hand in hand. And it's not like the Pharisees because no one can see when I wear my garments as opposed to when they had ash on their face when they were fasting. The Lord tell us he won't be mocked and not wearing the garment properly is becoming something that sadly a lot aren't taking seriously and yes it's the beginning of the sifting between the wheat and tares. They haven't changed their stance on garment wearing since Joseph Smith organized fullness of the restoration of the gospel. They may have changed clothing styles but not the proper wearing of it.
Last edited by Cc07 on Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cc07
captain of 10
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby Cc07 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:52 pm

Cc07 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:51 pm
We are specifically told in the instruction of how we should wear the garment. Just recently as I was renewing my temple recommend the counselor in the stake presidency read me a letter from the First Presideny re iterating that we should wear the garment day and night and then re asked the question if I was wearing my garments as told me from when I received them. I highly doubt the Lord is going to tell you it's ok to not wear them when it's given as a revelation through the first presidency of how we should wear them. You aren't keeping your covenants if you aren't wearing the garment properly. Part of the covenants you make is a physical symbol- yes it's part of it- of wearing the garment. You can't pick and choose. I do agree with you in saying if you aren't keeping your covenants then the garment essentially means nothing. But you are wrong in saying you can keep your covenants and not wear the garment because they go hand in hand. And it's not like the Pharisees because no one can see when I wear my garments as opposed to when they had ash on their face when they were fasting. The Lord tell us he won't be mocked and not wearing the garment properly is becoming something that sadly a lot aren't taking seriously and yes it's the beginning of the sifting between the wheat and tares. They haven't changed their stance on garment wearing since Joseph Smith organized fullness of the restoration of the gospel. They may have changed clothing styles but not the proper wearing of it.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Question about garments-Ladies only please

Postby TrueIntent » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:54 pm

Cc07 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:51 pm
We are specifically told in the instruction of how we should wear the garment. Just recently as I was renewing my temple recommend the counselor in the stake presidency read me a letter from the First Presideny re iterating that we should wear the garment day and night and then re asked the question if I was wearing my garments as told me from when I received them. I highly doubt the Lord is going to tell you it's ok to not wear them when it's given as a revelation through the first presidency of how we should wear them. You aren't keeping your covenants if you aren't wearing the garment properly. Part of the covenants you make is a physical symbol- yes it's part of it- of wearing the garment. You can't pick and choose. I do agree with you in saying if you aren't keeping your covenants then the garment essentially means nothing. But you are wrong in saying you can keep your covenants and not wear the garment because they go hand in hand. And it's not like the Pharisees because no one can see when I wear my garments as opposed to when they had ash on their face when they were fasting. The Lord tell us he won't be mocked and not wearing the garment properly is becoming something that sadly a lot aren't taking seriously and yes it's the beginning of the sifting between the wheat and tares. They haven't changed their stance on garment wearing since Joseph Smith organized fullness of the restoration of the gospel. They may have changed clothing styles but not the proper wearing of it.
I hear what you are saying. And you are ignorant of truth. The church has changed the wearing of the garment many times. Joseph Smith was the one who taught that it was appropriate to remove it if an individual was hot...it was symbolic of a brotherhood he was trying to teach...in the school of the prophets. Joseph and Hyrum both were NOT wearing their garments when they were martyred. Joseph Smith specifically counciled the brothers not to wear the garment at times. Brigham young, on the contrary, taught that the garment should not be removed even while bathing, one pant leg of the garment should be lifted at a time, to put your leg in the water for bathing. Joseph taught the original full length garment was never to be altered....we have altered it many times since then to accomodate changing clothing styles...and yet, we counsel the members not to alter theirs to accommodate clothing styles.

You should also study the history of our handbooks...Handbooks do not equal scripture....they reflect policy, customs, and "principles" of the church....WHICH ARE NOT DOCTRINE...a doctrine does not change...a principle is interpreted by the church, and frequently changes with culture which is why the individual should be left to decided.. in my opinion, the question of "how" the garment is worn is not appropriate for judging an individuals worthiness, and is not an appropriate question of the temple recommend. You should also study the history of the temple recommend questions....those have frequently changed based on culture. You will find that people used to be asked whether or not they stole and branded another man's cattle. A statement about having "oral sex" used to be read during a temple recommend, because the church did not believe members should have oral sex. Many of the younger generation would freak out if they knew that we used to read the "oral sex" statement. We have removed the statement....Culture rules the questions...not scripture, not doctrine.

The garment is also instructed differently in the temple, they used to say bra's over, now they say bra's under are okay. Cultural teachings not based in truth. The garment is a symbol....where in scripture do you find Christ teaching us to wear symbols to show we follow him, instead of teaching us to be the spiritual version of the symbol?????? Were the disciples supposed to administer bread and wine, or were they supposed to teach how to become the spiritual version of the bread and wine. You should also study ancient customs of the pharisees and how they were instruction by "oral teachings" to wear their garment. They were instructed to wear theirs 364 days per year, minus a holiday where they can remove it. When you can present a compelling case, I will listen to what you teach. We should question our "messengers"....just like the temple video instructs. Remember, Adam had two people trying to instruct him. We are trying to root out satan from our midst. But we are going to have to use our brains and hearts to do so.

THE LORD WILL NOT BE MOCKED...we mock him when we label false teachings to him. The question is...what is truth...do we assign something to God that he never required in the first place. BUT WHEN WE FINALLY understand truth, will we choose to act on it. You should study the history of the ordinances....in earlier versions of the actual endowment, we used to say, wear day and night...now it says, throughout ones life...which is it. there is definitely different meaning there. What is truth, and the bigger question is, will you acknowledge it? and the even bigger question is...will you act on it? Faith is a principle of action...is it not??

Listen, I don't think it's bad if you want to wear it day and night, But it's also not bad if someone doesn't want to. And people shouldn't be "cast out of a synagogue" to do so. I used to be a lot more judgmental about how people wore the garment, because I was doing everything I could to wear it perfectly--so i judged other people by my standards.... until I understood what the garment really meant. How you wear is a personal choice. The "garment" will reflect in your countenance if you are wearing the one God truly wants us to wear. And yes....all this matters if we want to become Zion some day. And yes, the teachings in the handbook are wrong on this. It's a handbook....when someone shows me a revealed revelation on the garment that I can parallel to two or three witnesses (i.e. the book of mormon, and new testament, and old testament.) ....I'll listen. Prophets make mistakes...you can find that all over scripture, and even in some recent conference talks. WE have taught a lot of stuff in the LDS church...it's time to start sifting through and finding what is truth.


Return to “Sisters in Zion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests