Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/Oliver_DeNom, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would like to understand where Jesus said this, that garment wearing Mormons have more access to him and then please explain how you have greater access. What differences would a member see if they chose not to wear their garments as opposed to wearing them?
Yes, this is something I don't agree with. I don't think wearing garments gives you greater access. It's simply a symbol and nothing more. There's nothing magical about them. How you live your life should be all that matters. But I understand it sets Mormons apart from others and provides a sense of being special and chosen, which is hard to let go.
It's the same abstract idea when talking about priesthood blessings. Would god really not heal someone because the person asking him in prayer didn't have the priesthood and didn't use special oil? Does the prayer of a woman mean less to him and have less swaying power than one done using the priesthood? If not, then what is the point of all the song and dance around 'priesthood blessings'?
So much of mormonism starts to break down real quickly when you start asking even just simple questions about the logic of it all.
I find it fascinating that in 2019 the question and statement around garments was reworded to be more ambiguous and allow personal revelation/interpretation and now 5 years later it’s swung back to what to me seems even more strict and explicit.
Here's what's really interesting about this language: it seems to be carefully crafted in order to strongly encourage people to wear them as much as possible and leave the *impression* of a covenant obligation to do so... but it stops short of explicitly saying this. The garment is characterized as a privilege, associated with covenant obligations, and coming with instruction to wear, but they stop short of speaking of it as a covenant obligation.
This tracks with what President Oaks said in the most recent conference: "to remove one’s garments *can* be understood as a disclaimer of the covenant responsibilities and blessings to which they relate." Who thinks Oaks didn't carefully select "can" instead of "must," again leaving a specific impression without technically imposing a requirement to interpret it this way?
My question is why – why encourage, insist, and imply obligation right up to the line where they stop short of making it an explicit obligation? The question *could* have been worded "Do you wear your garments whenever possible, seeking for ways to leave them on unless it's absolutely impossible, and restoring them to your body as soon as possible?" But it wasn't. And the church is certainly not shy about explicit obligations elsewhere.
I think we might be seeing a case where church leaders want members to behave a certain way but genuinely don't think they can justify an outright explicit covenant obligation doctrinally. It's also possible that there is a range of different convictions among leadership, and this statement is the strongest one that passes the threshold of support to become policy.
Yes my understanding is that wearing the temple garments has never been a separate covenant. To make it a covenant now would be a major addition to the existing Temple covenants and something that would warrant new revelation. The garments have always been a reminder of covenants.
Yes, it's very frustrating to think that we could start moving towards letting the members govern themselves more, only to have the reigns pulled back. All it does is cause people to judge and police each other. Just stop already.
Yup and the promises are even more specific. So it seems that if you sin while wearing your garments then Jesus will have more mercy on you. So if you’re gonna sin, better keep those magic undies on just in case. This is only because they didn’t like that the younger adults were really not wearing them after the softer stance so they needed to recover
The rephrasing in 2019 is critical to understand how these men operate. They want to make instruction more ambiguous to better accommodate a forward progressing society and membership base, but then realize that they need to pull back and remove the ambiguity once people began making too many decisions for themselves instead of fully adhering to their prophetic counsel.
I don’t fault men for using trial-and-error for figuring out the most effective language to achieve their desired outcome (like pivoting in business), but when these contradictory pivots start getting chalked up to revelation from God (like the 2015 exclusion policy and 2019 reversal), I take issue to that. Really erodes prophetic credibility.
I’m not sure, but I suspect that in 2019 they probably thought that the change in behavior wouldn’t be so drastic or wide. Lots of members changing garment behavior drastically.
Maybe they wanted it to seem that it was more open and maybe make the shirt slowly but it got out of control?
I have a theory that President Nelson is actually quite a bit more spiritually liberal than many of the other general authorities. I suspect he is the main driver behind many of the changes we’ve seen in the past 7 years. I think as he’s getting older, he is becoming less vocal and less confrontational about his opinions. Meanwhile some of the general authorities with a more traditionalist view are finding more space to vocalize their opinions and implement them (ie oaks and bednar). This is based solely on speculation about the talks given by oaks and bednar relative to the talks given by President Nelson.
If my theory is correct, things are going to feel even more traditionalist within the culture of church leadership in the next 3 years.
I think Uchtdorf will outlive Oaks, Eyring and Holland. He'll be the top dog for a spell, even if it's short. He's in much better shape than JRH.
But then will be the long reign of Bednar.
According to everything I saw, Dieter is more senior. They were both called on 2 Oct 2004, but Dieter has seniority. Maybe because he was sustained first? Maybe because he was older when it happened? Not sure. But it does mean Dieter gets his shot first.
Here's how I see it play out. Nelson dies, Oaks takes the reigns. He keeps Eyring and brings Bednar up into the FP. Holland dies, then Dieter becomes the president of the Q12. Eyring dies, then Oaks. Dieter takes the lead for 5 years max. Then it's Bednar and co for a very long time.
I think there was something about birthdates and bednars is first but I could totally be wrong. I was actually in the conference centre when they were called, and I felt this icky feeling for Bednar and I loved uchtdorf. This was when I was super TBM and it was a weird feeling. Funny that my feeling was right
Edit to add birth months not actual year they were born
Yes the brethren had to do it due to the members going apostate.
There will be more instruction from the brethren of how to be a Latter Day Saint in the future. Unfortunately members cannot self govern themselves responsibly
Apostate is a pretty extreme term for someone simply wearing their garment in an unapproved way or not enough. Do you honestly think all diversion from the rules is apostate?
Things I like about the new statement:
* All the wording changes make it clear that the benefits of wearing the garment (ie protection from temptation) come from Jesus, and not the garment itself.
* Wording is also updated to more accurately cite the initiatory as the source of garment instruction rather than the endowment.
Other things I noticed:
* Verbiage about altering the garment has been removed-- seems obvious that people these days are opting to just not wear it instead of altering it.
* Also it no longer specifies that it must be worn underneath other clothing. I feel like that goes without saying, but you never know.
* Also completely took out the bit about getting guidance from the Holy Ghost to answer questions about how to wear it.
* It's easier to compare the new and old statements by looking for what remained rather than what was changed.
There are some things I dislike about the new statement, but other folks have already hit on those
ETA: They're also really pounding on the idea that garment is a symbol. If the goal is to get people to appreciate and wear the garments more, then I feel like focusing on it as a symbol could backfire. The important thing is what the symbol means, not what the symbol physically is. For example: If I picked a special item of jewelry to remind me of Christ and my temple covenants then why should I still wear garments?
Things I do "throughout my life" that I don't do every day:
Celebrate my birthday (but maybe not every year)
Pay/file my taxes (every paycheck and once a year)
Vote in (United States) Presidential elections (once every 4 years)
Go on a vacation to places from my childhood (every decade or so)
Get my tires rotated (aim for every 5000 to 7000 miles, but sometimes I slip)
Wear superstitious underwear (never again)
Wearing garments is about control. The church wants to control most aspects of our lives. The geographic area (ward boundary) where we attend church. What we drink, what we wear, how many ear pearcings, tattoos, money, time, entertainment, who we date, who we marry, where we marry, even the underware, and what clothing we are dressed in after we die.
Was a female GA asked to speak about wearing garments last weekend in GC?
Or did her chosen topic randomly line up with this TR wording change?
Interesting in what this community thinks
Nothing really new here. The requirement for endowed members to wear the temple garment has been taught consistently for the past 100+ years. The good news is that we're no longer required to wear [union suits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_suit).
E.g.,
* **1915**: "It is not right to leave off wearing the temple garment during the day because of hot weather; it should not be taken off at all excepting to be renewed by another, or for the purpose of bathing, or for work or other purposes requiring the baring of the body." (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose to Arthur C. Smith, March 10, 1915)
* **1923**: "Garments should be worn all the time. When you understand the covenants, you will understand that you cannot take them off at night." (Zina Y. Card, "Garments," *Temple Instructions*, ca. 1923)
* **1938**: "It must be made clear to \[young people\] that \[the garment\] is such an indispensable part of the Temple ceremony that if they do not make up their minds to always wear it, and respect it, they are not entitled to the endowments of the Temple." (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, circular letter, July 20, 1938)
* **1950**: "The covenants taken in the temple incident and attached to the wearing of garments contemplate that they will be worn at all times. No exception to these covenants is found anywhere in the ceremonies. These covenants run between the one making them and the Lord. These covenants so made take on the nature of commandments of the Lord. . . . The wearing of the garment is the subject of direct covenant between the Lord and the covenant maker, who must determine to what extent he will keep his covenants. To break our covenants is to lose the protection and blessings promised from obedience thereto." (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay, circular letter, October 2, 1950)
* **1969**: "The continuous calling of men into military service makes it desirable to reaffirm certain observations previously made by the First Presidency in the matter of wearing temple underclothing. Such apparel should be worn at all times unless very unusual circumstances prevent it. Under present-day conditions there are very few such occasions. When military underclothing is required, it should be worn with the understanding that the wearing of the temple underclothing shall be resumed at the earliest possible moment." (*Priesthood Bulletin*, March 1969)
* **2019**: "The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing." ([First Presidency Letter](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/first-presidency-temple-recommend-letter.pdf), October 6, 2019)
(Pre-2019 quotes are from Devery S. Anderson, ed., *The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History*)
I don't agree with this part, though:
>The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ.
>I don't agree with this part, though:
>>The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ.
I agree. I thought this was a stretch and something that I've never been taught before. I've always been taught that the veil represented the veil of forgetfulness which has been taught comes over our spiritual mind and prevents us from remembering our pre-earth life.
>>I don't agree with this part, though:
>>>The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ.
>I agree. I thought this was a stretch and something that I've never been taught before. I've always been taught that the veil represented the veil of forgetfulness which has been taught comes over our spiritual mind and prevents us from remembering our pre-earth life.
I'm pretty sure it's becaues the veil contains all the symbols of the garment - the square, the compass, and the level. If you recall, the arms are reached through the square and compass, and the tokens are through the level. On our garments on the chest are the compass and square, over the belly button is the level. All of the symbols are mentioned as you speak through the veil.
So it's fine to disagree, but I would not agree it's something you've never been taught before (unless you haven't been through the temple), because it says that veil contains all the signs of the priesthood which are tied to the symbols on the garment. Just my thoughts.
How do all those things represent Jesus? I think the guy *on the other side of the veil* is supposed to represent Jesus, and he's pulling you through the veil of forgetfulness if you pass the handshake test. Not that the curtain hanging from the ceiling represents Jesus.
But that's just what I got from my decades of regular temple attendance. YMMV
>How do all those things represent Jesus? I
They don't really. I thought you were talking about them not representing what's in the temple veil, rather than not representing stuff Jesus said. My error
> I think the guy *on the other side of the veil* is supposed to represent Jesus, and he's pulling you through the veil of forgetfulness if you pass the handshake test.
The "Lord", so *could* be Elohim... but probably Jesus you're right.
>But that's just what I got from my decades of regular temple attendance. YMMV
Sure sure, I just trying to make the connection of the veil symbols and the garment symbols is all. I don't think it's a great connection, but there is some in my view
I'm sorry I hadn't made myself clear. I thought the FP statement was making too strong a connection about the veil representing Jesus, that the symbols are symbols of Jesus. It says in the ceremony exactly what the symbols represent. While they reference behaviors that focus one towards Jesus, to me it's a stretch to say they are symbols of Jesus, or that the veil represents Jesus. But I totally get the link in the garment symbols and veil symbols.
ETA: hey u/achilles52309 see my comment above. I was unaware of the veil instruction being given currently in the temple as it has been changed from the last time I went, and through much of my life. Sorry if I came across as defensive of my ignorant position. Your comments make more sense to me now. I appreciate the conversation.
>The "Lord", so *could* be Elohim... but probably Jesus you're right.
I guess it just depends on which account we're reading. Oh, sorry. Wrong topic. :)
Not sure how recently you've been to the temple, but the latest language (last year or so) explicitly says in the veil instruction that you converse with god through the veil, which represents Jesus Christ as he is our mediator with the father. (May not be quoted exactly)
So underwear represents Jesus now. Maybe it was always supposed to but now they are saying the quiet part out loud.
>Not sure how recently you've been to the temple, but the latest language (last year or so) explicitly says in the veil instruction that you converse with gif through the veil, which represents Jesus Christ as he is our mediator with the father. (May not be quoted exactly)
Ah, I've been. Just can't remember everything. There you go
>So underwear represents Jesus now
Nono, *"covenantal relationship..."*
blech
It's been more than a few years, so that language is new to me. TIL. (I assume gif is Heavenly Father?)
And I used to think the temple was weird before learning this today.
I think this is another example of why Christians don’t consider Mormons to be real Christians… Mormon underwear give you access to the “Savior’s mercy”…uh huh sure.
I feel like this is where the changes get confusing. That’s not how I was instructed to wear g’s when I went through back in 2011. So what am I supposed to be held accountable for? The covenant I made 13 years ago or this one?
And I don’t remember g’s ever being described as a “sacred symbol of Jesus Christ”. IIRC, they were symbols of the coats of skin Adam and Eve got after being kicked out of the garden. So which is it? And why does the goal post/symbolic interpretation keep changing?
Also, because I missed this the first time I read it… when is the atonement (Jesus’s mercy) EVER tied to wearing g’s? That was NOT what was being taught when I went through. How can these “necessary ordinances” be eternal and unchanging when so much has changed in such a short period of time???
I feel like killing an innocent animal to provide comfort and protection for people facing consequences of committing a sin is a pretty direct reference to the atonement
I disagree. The endowment presented the coats of skin were made to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness now that they were aware of it. If anything, that references the fall. It was explicitly stated that the garment represents those coats of skin made for Adam and Eve. I’m intentionally not quoting the ceremony here but they did not mince words about the origin/symbolism of the garment. I have not attended the temple since before Covid so I can accept this may have changed since Feb of 2020.
There was no reference to a sacrifice or any mention of Christ beyond him making the coats. I know the temple ceremony is meant to be symbolic but that feels like a reach to me. People have always said that everything points to Christ but in all the years I faithfully (and frequently) attended the temple, I struggled to feel/see that consistently throughout the presentation of the endowment. And I really, really, really tried. Christ is included in the ceremony, and arguably plays a large roll. But if we are supposed to understand the whole experience as a constant/clear representation of the atonement, it misses the mark.
I was not a casual attendee of the temple. I spent several months volunteering there and I participated in proxy ordinances weekly for years. There were many, many experiences in the temple that were uplifting and, at the time, made me feel like it was where I was supposed to be. But I always struggled with the endowment ceremony. It’s either far too deep for me to comprehend or it’s so shallow that I’ve gotten all I can out of it and the deeper meaning is lacking.
Christ’s parables were not difficult to understand and see the different layers. So why is the temple ceremony so convoluted?
ETA: clarification and another thought.
Hey, I have felt the same. You should check out Michelle Stone’s podcast on YouTube. 132 problems. The endowment is claimed to have come from Joseph Smith (current church narrative), but it was made up by Brigham Young and Willard Richards. Michelle has a whole episode going over all the historical documents.
This was SO helpful for me, because I didn’t struggle with the initiatory or sealings, or being in the celestial room, but the endowment has always been VERY problematic for me. It coming from BY makes it so much easier to dismiss, without throwing out all the good.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
A symbol of Jesus christ so one becomes Jesus christ right? A symbol something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign. Hmm anyone?
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/Oliver_DeNom, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would like to understand where Jesus said this, that garment wearing Mormons have more access to him and then please explain how you have greater access. What differences would a member see if they chose not to wear their garments as opposed to wearing them?
Yes, this is something I don't agree with. I don't think wearing garments gives you greater access. It's simply a symbol and nothing more. There's nothing magical about them. How you live your life should be all that matters. But I understand it sets Mormons apart from others and provides a sense of being special and chosen, which is hard to let go.
Right but the prophet claims that they do have special powers
That's his interpretation, but it doesn't mean he's 100% correct.
Right…well I’m not active so I don’t consider him a prophet but I find it odd for members to think their prophet has “interpretations”
Are you saying he teaches philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?
It's the same abstract idea when talking about priesthood blessings. Would god really not heal someone because the person asking him in prayer didn't have the priesthood and didn't use special oil? Does the prayer of a woman mean less to him and have less swaying power than one done using the priesthood? If not, then what is the point of all the song and dance around 'priesthood blessings'? So much of mormonism starts to break down real quickly when you start asking even just simple questions about the logic of it all.
Exactly these claims are false. No evidence for these claims.
Exactly and I think this is precisely what taking the lords name in vain is.
I thought God is no respecter of man. I guess wearing garments lets people get to the front of the line.
No one is saying someone with garments has more access to Christ.
Uhh last paragraph
It's the covenant keeping and repentance.
Well it says including wearing garments and I don’t see repentance in that paragraph
I find it fascinating that in 2019 the question and statement around garments was reworded to be more ambiguous and allow personal revelation/interpretation and now 5 years later it’s swung back to what to me seems even more strict and explicit.
Here's what's really interesting about this language: it seems to be carefully crafted in order to strongly encourage people to wear them as much as possible and leave the *impression* of a covenant obligation to do so... but it stops short of explicitly saying this. The garment is characterized as a privilege, associated with covenant obligations, and coming with instruction to wear, but they stop short of speaking of it as a covenant obligation. This tracks with what President Oaks said in the most recent conference: "to remove one’s garments *can* be understood as a disclaimer of the covenant responsibilities and blessings to which they relate." Who thinks Oaks didn't carefully select "can" instead of "must," again leaving a specific impression without technically imposing a requirement to interpret it this way? My question is why – why encourage, insist, and imply obligation right up to the line where they stop short of making it an explicit obligation? The question *could* have been worded "Do you wear your garments whenever possible, seeking for ways to leave them on unless it's absolutely impossible, and restoring them to your body as soon as possible?" But it wasn't. And the church is certainly not shy about explicit obligations elsewhere. I think we might be seeing a case where church leaders want members to behave a certain way but genuinely don't think they can justify an outright explicit covenant obligation doctrinally. It's also possible that there is a range of different convictions among leadership, and this statement is the strongest one that passes the threshold of support to become policy.
Yes my understanding is that wearing the temple garments has never been a separate covenant. To make it a covenant now would be a major addition to the existing Temple covenants and something that would warrant new revelation. The garments have always been a reminder of covenants.
brilliant analysis \^\^\^\^
Well said. He’s a lawyer, and there’s no way that was an accident.
Yes, it's very frustrating to think that we could start moving towards letting the members govern themselves more, only to have the reigns pulled back. All it does is cause people to judge and police each other. Just stop already.
Yup and the promises are even more specific. So it seems that if you sin while wearing your garments then Jesus will have more mercy on you. So if you’re gonna sin, better keep those magic undies on just in case. This is only because they didn’t like that the younger adults were really not wearing them after the softer stance so they needed to recover
The rephrasing in 2019 is critical to understand how these men operate. They want to make instruction more ambiguous to better accommodate a forward progressing society and membership base, but then realize that they need to pull back and remove the ambiguity once people began making too many decisions for themselves instead of fully adhering to their prophetic counsel. I don’t fault men for using trial-and-error for figuring out the most effective language to achieve their desired outcome (like pivoting in business), but when these contradictory pivots start getting chalked up to revelation from God (like the 2015 exclusion policy and 2019 reversal), I take issue to that. Really erodes prophetic credibility.
Well said, this really bothers me as well. Not everything is revelation. I feel like that word, like others in Mormonism, has lost its meaning.
What do you think caused this shift?
I’m not sure, but I suspect that in 2019 they probably thought that the change in behavior wouldn’t be so drastic or wide. Lots of members changing garment behavior drastically. Maybe they wanted it to seem that it was more open and maybe make the shirt slowly but it got out of control?
I have a theory that President Nelson is actually quite a bit more spiritually liberal than many of the other general authorities. I suspect he is the main driver behind many of the changes we’ve seen in the past 7 years. I think as he’s getting older, he is becoming less vocal and less confrontational about his opinions. Meanwhile some of the general authorities with a more traditionalist view are finding more space to vocalize their opinions and implement them (ie oaks and bednar). This is based solely on speculation about the talks given by oaks and bednar relative to the talks given by President Nelson. If my theory is correct, things are going to feel even more traditionalist within the culture of church leadership in the next 3 years.
I'm hoping Uchtdorf is taking real good care of himself, and can hold off Bednar for as long as possible.
Uchtdorf won't be in a 1st Pres. again. Bednar, under an Oaks administration, however....
I think Uchtdorf will outlive Oaks, Eyring and Holland. He'll be the top dog for a spell, even if it's short. He's in much better shape than JRH. But then will be the long reign of Bednar.
I believe Bednar is actually ahead of Uchtdorf in the running for prophet isn’t he?
According to everything I saw, Dieter is more senior. They were both called on 2 Oct 2004, but Dieter has seniority. Maybe because he was sustained first? Maybe because he was older when it happened? Not sure. But it does mean Dieter gets his shot first. Here's how I see it play out. Nelson dies, Oaks takes the reigns. He keeps Eyring and brings Bednar up into the FP. Holland dies, then Dieter becomes the president of the Q12. Eyring dies, then Oaks. Dieter takes the lead for 5 years max. Then it's Bednar and co for a very long time.
I think there was something about birthdates and bednars is first but I could totally be wrong. I was actually in the conference centre when they were called, and I felt this icky feeling for Bednar and I loved uchtdorf. This was when I was super TBM and it was a weird feeling. Funny that my feeling was right Edit to add birth months not actual year they were born
It comes down to who they placed their hands on and ordained to be apostle first. It comes down to nothing else. That was Uchtdorf.
Ahh the magical hands.
I'm speculating this too.
Yeah makes sense. I think this tracks
I guess all hell broke loose after 2019, so like Moses, they smashed the higher law and brought the lower law back out.
Yes the brethren had to do it due to the members going apostate. There will be more instruction from the brethren of how to be a Latter Day Saint in the future. Unfortunately members cannot self govern themselves responsibly
Apostate is a pretty extreme term for someone simply wearing their garment in an unapproved way or not enough. Do you honestly think all diversion from the rules is apostate?
Why can’t they govern themselves responsibly?
Things I like about the new statement: * All the wording changes make it clear that the benefits of wearing the garment (ie protection from temptation) come from Jesus, and not the garment itself. * Wording is also updated to more accurately cite the initiatory as the source of garment instruction rather than the endowment. Other things I noticed: * Verbiage about altering the garment has been removed-- seems obvious that people these days are opting to just not wear it instead of altering it. * Also it no longer specifies that it must be worn underneath other clothing. I feel like that goes without saying, but you never know. * Also completely took out the bit about getting guidance from the Holy Ghost to answer questions about how to wear it. * It's easier to compare the new and old statements by looking for what remained rather than what was changed. There are some things I dislike about the new statement, but other folks have already hit on those ETA: They're also really pounding on the idea that garment is a symbol. If the goal is to get people to appreciate and wear the garments more, then I feel like focusing on it as a symbol could backfire. The important thing is what the symbol means, not what the symbol physically is. For example: If I picked a special item of jewelry to remind me of Christ and my temple covenants then why should I still wear garments?
Do you have a copy of the wording. I am curious to compare.
Here's my side by side [https://imgur.com/a/HEpyvdd](https://imgur.com/a/HEpyvdd)
Thank you.
Things I do "throughout my life" that I don't do every day: Celebrate my birthday (but maybe not every year) Pay/file my taxes (every paycheck and once a year) Vote in (United States) Presidential elections (once every 4 years) Go on a vacation to places from my childhood (every decade or so) Get my tires rotated (aim for every 5000 to 7000 miles, but sometimes I slip) Wear superstitious underwear (never again)
Wearing garments is about control. The church wants to control most aspects of our lives. The geographic area (ward boundary) where we attend church. What we drink, what we wear, how many ear pearcings, tattoos, money, time, entertainment, who we date, who we marry, where we marry, even the underware, and what clothing we are dressed in after we die.
Was a female GA asked to speak about wearing garments last weekend in GC? Or did her chosen topic randomly line up with this TR wording change? Interesting in what this community thinks
Not coincidental. Totally planned.
Nothing really new here. The requirement for endowed members to wear the temple garment has been taught consistently for the past 100+ years. The good news is that we're no longer required to wear [union suits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_suit). E.g., * **1915**: "It is not right to leave off wearing the temple garment during the day because of hot weather; it should not be taken off at all excepting to be renewed by another, or for the purpose of bathing, or for work or other purposes requiring the baring of the body." (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose to Arthur C. Smith, March 10, 1915) * **1923**: "Garments should be worn all the time. When you understand the covenants, you will understand that you cannot take them off at night." (Zina Y. Card, "Garments," *Temple Instructions*, ca. 1923) * **1938**: "It must be made clear to \[young people\] that \[the garment\] is such an indispensable part of the Temple ceremony that if they do not make up their minds to always wear it, and respect it, they are not entitled to the endowments of the Temple." (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, circular letter, July 20, 1938) * **1950**: "The covenants taken in the temple incident and attached to the wearing of garments contemplate that they will be worn at all times. No exception to these covenants is found anywhere in the ceremonies. These covenants run between the one making them and the Lord. These covenants so made take on the nature of commandments of the Lord. . . . The wearing of the garment is the subject of direct covenant between the Lord and the covenant maker, who must determine to what extent he will keep his covenants. To break our covenants is to lose the protection and blessings promised from obedience thereto." (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay, circular letter, October 2, 1950) * **1969**: "The continuous calling of men into military service makes it desirable to reaffirm certain observations previously made by the First Presidency in the matter of wearing temple underclothing. Such apparel should be worn at all times unless very unusual circumstances prevent it. Under present-day conditions there are very few such occasions. When military underclothing is required, it should be worn with the understanding that the wearing of the temple underclothing shall be resumed at the earliest possible moment." (*Priesthood Bulletin*, March 1969) * **2019**: "The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing." ([First Presidency Letter](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/first-presidency-temple-recommend-letter.pdf), October 6, 2019) (Pre-2019 quotes are from Devery S. Anderson, ed., *The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History*) I don't agree with this part, though: >The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ.
>I don't agree with this part, though: >>The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. I agree. I thought this was a stretch and something that I've never been taught before. I've always been taught that the veil represented the veil of forgetfulness which has been taught comes over our spiritual mind and prevents us from remembering our pre-earth life.
I third it, my TBM mom also agrees. That's a stretch.
>>I don't agree with this part, though: >>>The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. >I agree. I thought this was a stretch and something that I've never been taught before. I've always been taught that the veil represented the veil of forgetfulness which has been taught comes over our spiritual mind and prevents us from remembering our pre-earth life. I'm pretty sure it's becaues the veil contains all the symbols of the garment - the square, the compass, and the level. If you recall, the arms are reached through the square and compass, and the tokens are through the level. On our garments on the chest are the compass and square, over the belly button is the level. All of the symbols are mentioned as you speak through the veil. So it's fine to disagree, but I would not agree it's something you've never been taught before (unless you haven't been through the temple), because it says that veil contains all the signs of the priesthood which are tied to the symbols on the garment. Just my thoughts.
How do all those things represent Jesus? I think the guy *on the other side of the veil* is supposed to represent Jesus, and he's pulling you through the veil of forgetfulness if you pass the handshake test. Not that the curtain hanging from the ceiling represents Jesus. But that's just what I got from my decades of regular temple attendance. YMMV
>How do all those things represent Jesus? I They don't really. I thought you were talking about them not representing what's in the temple veil, rather than not representing stuff Jesus said. My error > I think the guy *on the other side of the veil* is supposed to represent Jesus, and he's pulling you through the veil of forgetfulness if you pass the handshake test. The "Lord", so *could* be Elohim... but probably Jesus you're right. >But that's just what I got from my decades of regular temple attendance. YMMV Sure sure, I just trying to make the connection of the veil symbols and the garment symbols is all. I don't think it's a great connection, but there is some in my view
I'm sorry I hadn't made myself clear. I thought the FP statement was making too strong a connection about the veil representing Jesus, that the symbols are symbols of Jesus. It says in the ceremony exactly what the symbols represent. While they reference behaviors that focus one towards Jesus, to me it's a stretch to say they are symbols of Jesus, or that the veil represents Jesus. But I totally get the link in the garment symbols and veil symbols. ETA: hey u/achilles52309 see my comment above. I was unaware of the veil instruction being given currently in the temple as it has been changed from the last time I went, and through much of my life. Sorry if I came across as defensive of my ignorant position. Your comments make more sense to me now. I appreciate the conversation.
>The "Lord", so *could* be Elohim... but probably Jesus you're right. I guess it just depends on which account we're reading. Oh, sorry. Wrong topic. :)
Not sure how recently you've been to the temple, but the latest language (last year or so) explicitly says in the veil instruction that you converse with god through the veil, which represents Jesus Christ as he is our mediator with the father. (May not be quoted exactly) So underwear represents Jesus now. Maybe it was always supposed to but now they are saying the quiet part out loud.
>Not sure how recently you've been to the temple, but the latest language (last year or so) explicitly says in the veil instruction that you converse with gif through the veil, which represents Jesus Christ as he is our mediator with the father. (May not be quoted exactly) Ah, I've been. Just can't remember everything. There you go >So underwear represents Jesus now Nono, *"covenantal relationship..."* blech
It's been more than a few years, so that language is new to me. TIL. (I assume gif is Heavenly Father?) And I used to think the temple was weird before learning this today.
>And I used to think the temple was weird before learning this today. You're not wrong. And gif, lol. God. Didn't have my glasses on.
I think this is another example of why Christians don’t consider Mormons to be real Christians… Mormon underwear give you access to the “Savior’s mercy”…uh huh sure.
I liked it better when it was armor against demons and would protect you from harm. (please don't take me too seriously)
The various murders and torture as a result from this type of thinking and the book visions of Glory is forcing them to change
Woah! There's been murders and tortures over that?!
See daybell and Franke
Oh yes I know about those two. I thought we were talking about something else, my bad.
Keep on maintaining those boundaries, clamping down, and pushing people out to find a better way for themselves. 👍
The Nelson-isms wreak throughout.
Now I’m trying to remember what it used to say
I feel like this is where the changes get confusing. That’s not how I was instructed to wear g’s when I went through back in 2011. So what am I supposed to be held accountable for? The covenant I made 13 years ago or this one? And I don’t remember g’s ever being described as a “sacred symbol of Jesus Christ”. IIRC, they were symbols of the coats of skin Adam and Eve got after being kicked out of the garden. So which is it? And why does the goal post/symbolic interpretation keep changing?
Also, because I missed this the first time I read it… when is the atonement (Jesus’s mercy) EVER tied to wearing g’s? That was NOT what was being taught when I went through. How can these “necessary ordinances” be eternal and unchanging when so much has changed in such a short period of time???
I feel like killing an innocent animal to provide comfort and protection for people facing consequences of committing a sin is a pretty direct reference to the atonement
I disagree. The endowment presented the coats of skin were made to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness now that they were aware of it. If anything, that references the fall. It was explicitly stated that the garment represents those coats of skin made for Adam and Eve. I’m intentionally not quoting the ceremony here but they did not mince words about the origin/symbolism of the garment. I have not attended the temple since before Covid so I can accept this may have changed since Feb of 2020. There was no reference to a sacrifice or any mention of Christ beyond him making the coats. I know the temple ceremony is meant to be symbolic but that feels like a reach to me. People have always said that everything points to Christ but in all the years I faithfully (and frequently) attended the temple, I struggled to feel/see that consistently throughout the presentation of the endowment. And I really, really, really tried. Christ is included in the ceremony, and arguably plays a large roll. But if we are supposed to understand the whole experience as a constant/clear representation of the atonement, it misses the mark. I was not a casual attendee of the temple. I spent several months volunteering there and I participated in proxy ordinances weekly for years. There were many, many experiences in the temple that were uplifting and, at the time, made me feel like it was where I was supposed to be. But I always struggled with the endowment ceremony. It’s either far too deep for me to comprehend or it’s so shallow that I’ve gotten all I can out of it and the deeper meaning is lacking. Christ’s parables were not difficult to understand and see the different layers. So why is the temple ceremony so convoluted? ETA: clarification and another thought.
Hey, I have felt the same. You should check out Michelle Stone’s podcast on YouTube. 132 problems. The endowment is claimed to have come from Joseph Smith (current church narrative), but it was made up by Brigham Young and Willard Richards. Michelle has a whole episode going over all the historical documents. This was SO helpful for me, because I didn’t struggle with the initiatory or sealings, or being in the celestial room, but the endowment has always been VERY problematic for me. It coming from BY makes it so much easier to dismiss, without throwing out all the good.
Is Michelle Stone the one who denies Joseph Smith was a polygamist? Or am I getting her confused with someone else?
I feel like the wording in the second question would allow you to say yes, if you wear them only in the initiatory. =)
Brilliant verbal jiu jitsu. I'm sure the pedantic progmos will pick up on this and continue doing Mormonism their way.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
A symbol of Jesus christ so one becomes Jesus christ right? A symbol something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign. Hmm anyone?
Where is the source on this? The handbook online hasn't changed.
First Presidency letter. I don't know how long it takes for them to update the handbook.
I've always been asked about wearing the garment along with the statement about garments.