Temple Fashion
It is an honor to be a co-blogger on this fantastic anything goes blog born out of a thread jack of one of Aaron B Cox’ posts over at Banner Of Heaven (a great LDS site, BTW).
Now in that thread jack I commented “Like I’m on the East Coast and we’re in a tropical air mass, high 80’s F and light rain (100% humidity). Where can someone do a post declaring that only an extreme sicko masochist would be wearing their G’s in this weather and saying they’re comfy going to the temple and only putting on their G’s once they’re inside in the AC?”.
So here in my debut post at Mormon Open Forum, I’d like to start with that timely summer topic for endowed members. (at least those living in the northern hemisphere, you downunder folks will get your turn soon enough). That is, when are you comfy being a regular temple goer and not wearing your G’s?
As reflected above, for me it’s pretty much whenever I sweat, the G’s come off. I’ve even gone to the temple in the summer and not put the G’s on until I was inside and comfy in the AC of the temple locker room. Now I’m comfy w/ this practice under the rationale that we don’t have to wear them when playing sports, swimming , etc. So not wearing them when you’re sweating like a pig makes senses to me too. (yeah, I know pig’s don’t actually sweat). At work I have AC in my office, but I’m frequently outdoors too, and just can’t handle wearing G’s in this weather.
I also sleep naked w/ my wife. I mean all the time, any night I’m home or she’s with me on the road, which seems outside the instruction we’re given. In our second year of marriage (our temple marriage followed marriage by a bishop) my wife would come to bed with the G’s on and put them back on afterward, but after a while she began to follow my lead. Also, like a lot of guys, I prefer mornings so waking up nude w/ the wife facilitates things. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll do it any night, if that’s what she wants.
So in practice between coming home from work, taking a backyard evening swim and going to bed, etc, there are some summers my G’s stay in the drawer for a several days at time. When the weather breaks, it’s seems like a hassle to get back into the G’s, but my wife kind of stays on top of the situation keeps me w/ the program. When I travel in the summer, which is often, I always pack some G’s just in case the weather breaks, but to be honest, I do that more to keep wifey happy than out of any personal motivation.
This all leads me to ponder the next step in temple garment evolution. From the long version, to the shorter one piece to the present two piecers, I think the next logical step is to forgo fabric entirely and move to a symbolic pendant wore around the neck a kin to crosses and crucifixes common with other Christians. This would maintain the symbolism of the garment but avoid the problem of weather related garment hiatus. We could even wear and receive protection from the pendant during sports, swimming, etc. Of course, I leave it to the GA’s to designed a suitable temple pendant to replace the garment.
So, what do others care to see as the next trend in temple fashion?
Steve (FSF)
I don’t see why they cut tattoo the marks on or have people draw them on with a permanent marker.
And what business of it of a bishop’s what kind of underwear people wear at night, anyway? I always thought that was a creepy temple recommend question. Eeew.
Comment by Elmo — July 5, 2005 @ 8:39 pm
I meant to write “I don’t see why they can’t tattoo the marks on…”
Comment by Elmo — July 5, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
The history of the changes in the garment is that Smith originally had a woman sew them from hand on what was the standard undergarment for the time based on his verbal instructions, she took a whack at it, Smith checked out what she did, and that was that. Available evidence indicates Smith was shown by Moroni what the marks were to look like, but the rest was left up to Smith and the seamstress. This was unknown for some time in the early Church, and when it came to light, that is what prompted the changes over time. The Bretheren realised the entire thing had not been dictated to Smith, and so they felt it was OK to go away from the one piece long sleeve woolen mostrosity into more the more contemporary designs we are familiar with today.
No, how much can it change? It seems unlikely the Church would sanction temple tatoos, given GBH’s comments on body mods. But, I bet someone out there has already done that (hey if there is some guy out there with all the prophets tatoo’d on his back, then someone has to have done the temple marks too). As far as how much shorter or smaller could the approved garments go, well, as long as the marks are in place I cannot see any reason why a wife beater style tank top, or even a tube top for women, couldnt be rationalized, and then I suppose it could be made to match a pair of slightly enlongate briefs for men or boy shorts for women.
But, then, there is the whole aspect of modesty indirectly enforced through the temple garment. On the other hand, there are plenty of women who roll up the shoulder sleeves and wear skin tight stuff over the garment anyway, so that can be circumvented anyway.
Comment by Kurt — July 6, 2005 @ 10:34 am
The garment is what they are for a reason. No one forces you to wear them. You promised to wear them when you made temple covenants, as a symbolic measure. If we get into word parsing and nit picking and justification, perhaps we have gotten away from the heart of the matter, and shouldn’t wear them at all. We should not be looking for opportunities to take them off.
I have much more respect for a person who decides to not wear them because he/she doesn’t fully understand or want to commit to the covenants, than a person who takes the covenants and lives them halfway, and violates the purpose of wearing the garments.
Comment by JS — July 7, 2005 @ 8:30 pm
When do we “promise to wear them”? There is no such covenant in the temple or out of it, which makes it doubly ignominious for a bishop to be asking about underwear.
Comment by Elmo — July 7, 2005 @ 9:51 pm
JS,
Welcome to open forum. I respect your opinion and want to hear more.
The garment has evolved into its present friendlier form. Who is to say it won’t continue to evolve like everything else in the church that continuously improves? It is symbolic as you point out. I’m just thinking we should skip a few evolutionary steps and come up w/ a “garment” easily wearable 24/7.
Some questions to clarify your opinion: If it’s ok not to wear them when playing sports, why is it not equally ok not to wear them when you’re sweating because it’s hot? And is it sinful to sleep nude w/ your lover? Just taking the garment off for sex and putting it back on soon after seems unromantic, at least to me.
In any case, all view points are welcome here, and I’d like to hear more of yours.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 7, 2005 @ 11:25 pm
Steve (FSF),
A couple things. You might be right that the garment may continue to evolve, but I can’t imagine it will cover less skin. We are taught that the garment represents the coats of skin made for A&E (which represent the Atonement) as a covering (of our sins). A necklace doesn’t cover anything. Your explanation makes the assumption that the garment is about the symbols, not taking into account the fact that it is a covering. For more detailed explanation of this go here and here.
Secondly, you seem to make the assumption that sweat is the reason we are “allowed” to take them off during sports. I’m not sure this is the case. Same with your assumption of nude sleeping being sinful. I think this is mostly following the Spirit regarding these issues. If you are truly striving to live your covenants and truly striving to follow the Spirit you should be fine. If that’s the case, who cares what others say.
Comment by Rusty — July 8, 2005 @ 12:52 am
Garments are a great way for the LDS church to make money. Pendants don’t need to be replaced as often and you don’t have to have several dozen of them throughout your life. So no, the Church will never get rid of them.
Comment by Mortimer — July 8, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
The Church sells the garments so cheap its hard to believe they make any money off them. You can also buy approved patterns for garments and make them yourself if you are so inclined.
Comment by kurtn — July 8, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
I’d prefer a necklace, thanks.
Comment by Bonnie — July 8, 2005 @ 7:51 pm
Maybe the Church should just let its members do whatever they need to to (a) remember their covenants and (b) have a loving, romantic married life free from the prying eyes of bishops who ask what kind of underwear they wear day and night.
If this means one person wears a cross, another a navel ring and someone else wears a tattoo or just the garment bottoms, maybe that’s how it should be.
And maybe some people don’t need fabric reminders, especially those who live near the Equator or the Arizona desert.
Comment by Lucy — July 8, 2005 @ 7:58 pm
I hope we don’t judge people on their morality by the clothing they decide to wear or not wear. Isn’t that too pharistical? Judging the person’s ethics because of their outer garments is quite ridiculous.
Now, I think you could judge them as to whether or not they are ethical because they promised to wear the garment, but after that, the judging has to stop.
Cool blog.
Comment by bboy-Mike — July 8, 2005 @ 8:26 pm
No one promises to wear the temple garment. They are merely *told* to wear it. There is never a promise or covenant made, so it shouldn’t matter whether or how they wear it.
Comment by Mortimer — July 8, 2005 @ 8:32 pm
I’ve never had a problem with the male 2-piece garments. I prefer to wear a t-shirt everyday under my clothing anyway. Even though I’ve been inactive for a long time, I still wear garment-like undershirts every day.
What really gets my knickers in a twist is the female version. It’s awful! It’s ugly, impractical, and very unfair to women. Why can’t women just wear the male t-shirt garment? I find the whole thing a little creepy.
Comment by NFlanders — July 8, 2005 @ 8:47 pm
Hi Ned. Welcome to Open Forum. No need to be so reserved. Tell us what you really think.
BTW, I saw your great post at Nine Moons; aren’t you technically active now?
Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 8, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
Thanks, Steve. I may be technically active, but I’ll probably always be inactive at heart. I was just trying to clarify that I don’t wear garments, but still follow the garment style.
Comment by NFlanders — July 8, 2005 @ 10:01 pm
Steve (FSF),
I tried to make a comment here yesterday and it reloaded the page without posting my comment (and I forgot to apple-C it). I will try to make it again without your censorship machine getting in my way…
Part of the problem with your argument is that you are talking about the garment as if it were about the symbols. It’s not. In fact, I’m not sure they are even that important. We are instructed that the garment is a shield and protection over us, that it represents the coats of skin that were given to A&E after they had sinned, a covering if you will. Was there death in the Garden before or after they sinned? No, not until an animal had to be sacrificed to provide this covering. The garments are not a physical shield/protection (contrary to what Willard Marriott might suggest on 60 Minutes), the garment represents the Atonement. The word “atonement” means “to cover” (see here for the first googled reference) It is a covering/shield/protection from sin, a reminder of the covenants we make. A necklace doesn’t cover us. Garments do. There have been a couple posts that have talked about this that you might find intriguing here and here.
Now, I’m not suggesting it’s never appropriate to take them off. I’m just saying that there’s a lot of meaning there. For some it might be about the sweat, but that doesn’t mean that it has to be for you. Check out those two posts, I think you’ll find them interesting.
Comment by Rusty — July 9, 2005 @ 1:42 am
I tend to think of my garments the same way I do my wedding ring.
As for sleeping naked, that’s a nice luxury you probably won’t be able to afford once you have kids. Enjoy it while you can.
Comment by Susan M — July 9, 2005 @ 5:08 pm
Lots of people in and out of the Church sleep naked, whether or not they have kids. That’s an odd statement.
Comment by Elmo — July 9, 2005 @ 5:35 pm
Susan and Elmo,
I think you’re both right in that different things work for different families. My wife and I have been at this a while w/ two grown children and three still at home. The kids know that mom and dad need private time. The bedroom door is locked and they don’t even knock on our bedroom door unless it’s an emergency. That said, I can fully appreciate that what works for us wouldn’t work for another family.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 9, 2005 @ 7:06 pm
Rusty,
Excellent points. I do often think about the first garments coming from skins of the first animals sacrificed representing the atonement. It certainly is articulated well in those links, thanks. But since our garments, aren’t skins and only represent that sacrifice, my proposed pendant could cover that symbolism with perhaps an engraving on one side depicting that first animal sacrifice and the resulting skins and a crucifix on the front representing the real sacrifice for us.
Oh, but then Christians in other dominations would think that was cool and start wearing them too I guess. Gosh this is getting more complicated than I thought. I better leave it to the GA’s to design a temple pendant non-LDS would find unattractive.
And I appreciate your non-judgmental attitude about following the spirit regarding when one wears the garment. I am presently bothered that I get back into the G’s at the end of a heat wave more to please my wife than out of any personal motivation. Something I could easily wear 24/7 would free my mind, so to speak.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 9, 2005 @ 8:42 pm
>I am presently bothered that I get back into the G’s at the end of a heat wave more to please my wife than out of any personal motivation. Something I could easily wear 24/7 would free my mind, so to speak.
Sounds like wearing garments is the last thing you should be concerned about, gospel wise. Why are you bothering at all? If your wife knew that’s why you wore them, would she really want you to? If so, how sad for both of you. Stop wearing them and stop going to the temple and stop going to church. Then you’ll be free to do and wear whatever you want whenever you want.
Comment by casual observer — July 11, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
The “censorship machine” has been completely disabled. We no longer have any automated anti-spam anything in place.
Is it just me or what? I really dont find the G’s al that problematic. I wear them all the time, regardless of weather, regarldess of activity (and no, I dont just sit on my keister and watch TV in an air conditioned house all day). If its hot and youre sweating, it doesnt really matter what you are or are not wearing, youre a mess.
I do kind of like the tattoo idea, but then all of the antimormons would say its the Mark of the Beast. And if you looked at the tatoos under a microscope it would in fact be thousands of tiny 666s micro-etched all over the evil mormons.
Comment by Kurt — July 12, 2005 @ 10:59 am
Casual Observer,
Great to have you at Open Forum. Thanks for the advice, but I like going to the temple and church, etc. And don’t all married people do at least some things for their spouse that they’re not otherwise not highly motivated to do or comfortable with? It’s a bit graphic, but check out http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/07/02/available-discussion-thread-2/#comment-43 for a rather personal example.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 12, 2005 @ 11:23 am
I think it’s a sign of progress that “do you wear your garments day and night” can be interpreted as loosely or as strictly as any individual member desires. Someone who wears his/her garments once a week or only during the winter could answer the question completely truthfully.
Comment by Margaret — July 12, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
This also goes for most of the othe vague questions on the TR interview. “Do you keep the law of Chastity” can mean one thing to one guy and something completely different to another. For one person, a heavy makeout session or a date with Ms. Palmer and her five sister is enough to keep one away for the temple. Other guys think as long as they don’t get the girl pregnant or as long as they use protection it’s okay because they’re not “gving life” (actually heard that one from a 35-year old never married guy on an LDS singles dating web site).
Comment by Margaret — July 12, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
Margaret,
Welcome to Open Forum. I hadn’t thought about some of the instruction/recommend questions that loosely before. You make a valid point. Maybe I’m thinking too hard about this.
On the single 35-year old LDS guy justifying his sexual activity, given my past, I certainly won’t judge him. I couldn’t imagine a healthy male that old not having been w/ a woman. But his rationalization and failure to accept his weakness (sin) is sad given his age and likelihood that he’s just being too picky about his marriage prospects.
And on the LofC interpretation in general, the sexual conduct temple covenant was raised somewhat circa 1990 and that never seems to get discussed, I may take a crack at that one on a separate post if nobody else does.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 13, 2005 @ 3:04 am
What, exactly, do people need protection from 24/7? And what do grown-up, endowed Church members need protection from that babies and young children don’t?
Now that fewer people are buying into the “magic garment” paradigm (i.e. don’t let them touch the floor! keep them on at all times! they protect you from fire!) then fewer people will be superstitious about our religion in general. It’s just a way of life, we’re not gods in training, and we don’t know whether other people who didn’t get sealed will live together as family units.
Garments are just cloth, and they attract buttstains just like any other underwear material.
So, yeah, it would seem as though a precious stone set in a pendant (pearl of great price?) would be a better covenant reminder.
Comment by Tawanda — July 13, 2005 @ 7:55 am
Garments are sacred clothing, and we should respect the beliefs of those who choose to wear them. I disagree with the practice of inquiring (looking) whether or not people are wearing the garments, though. While maintining respect for the religious aspects of the garment, I believe that the garments are symbols, and we should be concerned about the underlying ideas that the symbols represent.
Why are Mormons so fixated on making up rules and following the rules all the time? This is a topic for another post, but just because you wear your garments, pay tithing, and can answer yes to all the temple recommend questions does not mean that you are a “worthy” or righteous person. You can’t use these questions as a proxy for determining whether or not someone is a good person. Once you get to be an adult, you shouldn’t be threatened with eternal damnation and hellfire just to get you to pay 10% of your income to the Church or to wear a special kind of underwear. You should pay your tithing and wear garments because you WANT to. Forcing people to do these things through intimidation and fear will cause resentment and frustration, not enlightenment.
Comment by Lucy — July 14, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
Like Lucy, I believe it’s wrong for people to inquire about each other’s underwear–including bishops at recommend interviews. Isn’t that harassment, btw? I’m surprised nobody’s sued by now.
Comment by VisitngYourSite — July 20, 2005 @ 5:28 pm
Hey guys,
My wife and I are going to the temple in December and are wondering what kind of garments are best in the heat.
Any advice??
Comment by just popped by — September 27, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
The garment thing from an apostates view. If the church would stop changing to meet the view of the world and its never satisfied members, I probably would still be a member. If you are a member who truely believes that you belong to the only ‘true church’ then quit your whining about the inconveniences of your religion and just live it. The garments are there for a reason so why question it or try to rationalize what the bretheren say? After all when the bretheren speak the debate is over, right?
Comment by matthew webster — October 26, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
I have been a member all my life and went to the temple beofre my mission, but I went inactive for a few years and stopped wearing my garments. I now wear them all the time. I even put them on “Afterwards” My wife, who is inactive and doesn’t believe in the church any more, knows that is how I believe and that it is important to me.
While we are told to wear the garment all the time, it is still our choice. I have found that as I was closer to the Lord and his Commandments I had less problems with Buffet style religion. I wear them because I was told to. It’s that simple. I believe in the Lord and I believe in the Temple covenants and therefore I wear the Garment. Hot or not.
Comment by Ray — March 30, 2006 @ 2:45 pm