Temple Secrecy

[Art Vandelay]

one cool thing they might want to do......female garment bottoms with normal underwear sewn over the Gs. Basically you are buying the bottom half of a Nacho Libre-style pro-wrestling outfit. This would save grandmothers the world over the effort of having to purchase and wear both simultaneously. And btw, grandmothers......it isn't working....that slimming effect you are going for.....

Two questions:

1. Does this really happen? Women wear gentile granny panties (I prefer the term Aaronics but that doesn't seem applicable here) to wear over their garments?!?

2. How do you know about this fact?

[TripletDaddy]

Two questions:

1. Does this really happen? Women wear gentile granny panties (I prefer the term Aaronics but that doesn't seem applicable here) to wear over their garments?!?

2. How do you know about this fact?

I first came across it in my wife's family when I was in law school. I noticed that their laundry room had a bunch of granny stuff and I asked my wife whether there was some elderly non-member camping out as a boarder in their basement. She did a little digging and told me that her mom does it sometimes, and it was passed down from her mom.

I asked my carpool mates about it one day as we were driving up to SLC. Most of them scoffed at the idea (I think it is a given that the younger gen doesn't do this). Then they went home and asked their wife....the next day, 3 of the 4 guys confirmed via their wife that their MIL does this regularly.

My wife and I have discussed this since then and we are in agreement that no such traditions will be passed down in our home.

[UtahDan]

I first came across it in my wife's family when I was in law school. I noticed that their laundry room had a bunch of granny stuff and I asked my wife whether there was some elderly non-member camping out as a boarder in their basement. She did a little digging and told me that her mom does it sometimes, and it was passed down from her mom.

I asked my carpool mates about it one day as we were driving up to SLC. Most of them scoffed at the idea (I think it is a given that the younger gen doesn't do this). Then they went home and asked their wife....the next day, 3 of the 4 guys confirmed via their wife that their MIL does this regularly.

My wife and I have discussed this since then and we are in agreement that no such traditions will be passed down in our home.

There are some men who, because of hernias and other similar situations, even post repair, would be very uncomfortable without support and so they either do this or simply forgo the bottom in favor of briefs.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If I'm not mistaken the ten hour version was what took place in Nauvoo, after Joseph Smith was killed. I've always attributed the length of the earliest version to inefficiencies related to the newness of the presentation, but I don't know if we really know details about the content of those early sessions in Nauvoo. Does Bruegger's book discuss them?

Regardless, I think it's safe to say that without a doubt that the majority of the endowment ceremony as we have known it was created and instituted by Brigham Young. IIRC Joseph Smith gave about 40-50 people their endowments in the upper room of the Red Brick Store and then charged Brigham Young with organizing and systematizing the ceremony. What we have today is what BY instituted in light of that charge.

With regards to the actual time commitment for each subsequent version, much of the repetition that has been eliminated to streamline the presentation simply isn't necessary in today's world. The repetition within the ceremony allowed for men and women who had little to no education to learn in a way that the presentation would stick in their long term memory. Our education has improved, both as a nation and as a church. We don't need as much repetition in one ceremony, therefore it is shorter.

Now regarding the significant revisions and the question as to whether or not it loses its claim to being divinely inspired, I don't think there is much to that question. Dan's assertion that complaints about the oaths in the pre-1991 (can't remember if that's the date or not) version stimulated the change is likely correct. The question is, should this bother us, not just for the temple, but for any principle, doctrine, or policy? I don't think it should. IMO a bedrock principle of revelation and modern prophets is that we are not limited to revelations codified by past generations. This is foundational for Mormon thought and practice. I think the problem we encounter is to assume that because we believe past prophets were inspired then everything they said must be inspired and therefore doctrinally correct. (Cue Seattle Ute re priesthood ban).

Furthermore, when you look a the pattern of revelation that JS followed in the early days of the church, it's clear that most of the revelations were received in answer to a question. In many instances Joseph asked the question because one or more of the members wanted to know about something. So regardless of how revelation comes (top down or bottom up), if it is a change for the good then I'm all for it. Even if I don't like it (I don't like the most recent change which requires me to be seated during the endowment, but I recognize it as a good thing for many).

On a similar note, the Catholic mass has undergone massive changes, both in content and presentation, over the last 100 years. If you ask most Catholics, I don't think they feel that the changes have taken away from the spirit of the mass. I feel the same about the changes to the temple, if anything they have improved the spirit of the ceremony by removing distracting focusing on the intent. I agree with Wuap's comment about SIEQ's discussion of narrative and the endowment, although I think that in order for members to understand the narrative they need to have avenues of discussion. (is that horse dead yet?)

No, feel free to keep beating the horse. It's a good point.

I understand your point regarding continuing revelation and you argue it effectively. Part of the undercurrent I feel stems from the knowledge that (based on my research) there never was a recorded revelation regarding the endowment. As you say, JS developed the initial concept (not long after dabbling in masonry) and he and BY tinkered and experimented until they came up with one that felt about right. There was clearly ongoing iteration and experimentation in the early years. It was then passed on orally and was not even recorded in writing until many years after the Saints came to Utah.

In spite of this, it seems that many members view the endowment as a revelation; as a type of scripture similar to a section in the D&C. And the fact that we perform it as an ordinance for deceased ancestors reinforces that interpretation. But given the manner in which it evolved and the fact that it is still changing, it seems to me that the endowment more closely resemble an official LDS lesson manual more than a section of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is divinely inspired, but it is ultimately a method of teaching and therefore subject to change. This model seems to make more sense to me.

[Donuthole]

I could also use some bottoms that are more like biker shorts.

These exist. My wife just bought some about a month ago. She loves them.

[pellegrino]

I can't even imagine Beehive Clothing tying to do a bra. LOL! They can't even get simple underwear and undershirts right that fit most women.

A bra is not a simple thing and a well-fitting bra is important. I can't imagine that disaster that would be.

There are many women's camisoles that come with built in bras. The concept isn't that hard to duplicate and while it may not work for some women I think the most important thing for women is to give them as many options as possible. They should have a sizing system that allows them to get the fit that unendowed members have with their underwear.

Rosebud is right, female garments are ugly. Except for the token lace border and here is nothing uniquely feminine about them. On the contrary everything about them gives the impression that they were an afterthought, designed by men who have no real idea what a modern woman expects as far as how underwear should fit. It would not be hard to give some female designers parameters with regards to modesty and come up with modern alternatives that fit more women better and give them more options regarding fabric and finishes. If, as the proclamation says, gender is truly an essential part of the plan of salvation then I hope to see some changes in the future for female garments.

I don't want this to sound like a rant, it's just an observation that I feel would improve female attitudes towards the garment, which I fear have never been overly positive. I believe that this would also improve many members' attitude about the temple.

[pellegrino]

In spite of this, it seems that many members view the endowment as a revelation; as a type of scripture similar to a section in the D&C. And the fact that we perform it as an ordinance for deceased ancestors reinforces that interpretation. But given the manner in which it evolved and the fact that it is still changing, it seems to me that the endowment more closely resemble an official LDS lesson manual more than a section of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is divinely inspired, but it is ultimately a method of teaching and therefore subject to change. This model seems to make more sense to me.

I agree with this and I would add that because of the secrecy of the endowment and its history I doubt there will be many in authority who a) read enough to get this b) feel that they have the cojones to make drastic changes to the endowment. I think the current presentation is here to stay with minor changes here and there. They've already modified the potentially offensive parts (with due respect to Rosebud, I don't think many find the veil offensive and I don't think it will be eliminated) so I don't see many major changes in the future.

[TheBYUGuy]

Rosebud is right, female garments are ugly. Except for the token lace border and here is nothing uniquely feminine about them. On the contrary everything about them gives the impression that they were an afterthought, designed by men who have no real idea what a modern woman expects as far as how underwear should fit. It would not be hard to give some female designers parameters with regards to modesty and come up with modern alternatives that fit more women better and give them more options regarding fabric and finishes. If, as the proclamation says, gender is truly an essential part of the plan of salvation then I hope to see some changes in the future for female garments.

I don't want this to sound like a rant, it's just an observation that I feel would improve female attitudes towards the garment, which I fear have never been overly positive. I believe that this would also improve many members' attitude about the temple.

This topic came up in my very house just last night. I'll spare the gory details until wuap's Bedroom forum comes about, but in short, there was a concern presented to me that female garments are not very attractive.

I started my reply with "I'll be honest--they're not attractive at all," but I took a quick hint from her facial expression and saved it with, "but you are amazingly attractive regardless of that."

Man, I'm smooth.

[wuapinmon]

This topic came up in my very house just last night. I'll spare the gory details until wuap's Bedroom forum comes about, but in short, there was a concern presented to me that female garments are not very attractive.

I started my reply with "I'll be honest--they're not attractive at all," but I took a quick hint from her facial expression and saved it with, "but you are amazingly attractive regardless of that."

Man, I'm smooth.

Who cares if garments are attractive? They are meant to be covered with clothing. And, if you're looking at somebody solely in garments, and you're worried about being attracted to them, the garments are coming off anyway, or you shouldn't be there, or you should just go to sleep.

I'm not talking about fit and comfort, I'm talking about their attractiveness. I'm all for modifications for fit and comfort, but for attractiveness, I don't get it. Of course, I'm a man, so I admit that I do not understand the feminine side of wanting them to be more attractive.

[Pheidippides]

Who cares if garments are attractive? They are meant to be covered with clothing. And, if you're looking at somebody solely in garments, and you're worried about being attracted to them, the garments are coming off anyway, or you shouldn't be there, or you should just go to sleep.

I'm not talking about fit and comfort, I'm talking about their attractiveness. I'm all for modifications for fit and comfort, but for attractiveness, I don't get it. Of course, I'm a man, so I admit that I do not understand the feminine side of wanting them to be more attractive.

Well, see, you get women who don't understand the concept of sight as a turn on, and then they just walk around in Gs and thing you should be ready to go, when really the Gs make you limp as a dead fish handshake from a Japanese man. You don't want to see them at all within any sort of temporal proximity of the deed, lest the deed never get done at all.

Not that I know anything about that. Honest.

[creekster]

Reqaqding throught this thread I am nagged by one question:

How does Pellegrino know so much and have such strong opinions about women's undergarments?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with this and I would add that because of the secrecy of the endowment and its history I doubt there will be many in authority who a) read enough to get this b) feel that they have the cojones to make drastic changes to the endowment. I think the current presentation is here to stay with minor changes here and there. They've already modified the potentially offensive parts (with due respect to Rosebud, I don't think many find the veil offensive and I don't think it will be eliminated) so I don't see many major changes in the future.

I agree that big changes are unlikely in the future. Partly because there is less and less to cut.

The endowment = evolving teaching mechanism as opposed to perfect revelation model also makes me feel more comfortable about the masonic elements. That bothers me a lot less than it used to. I suppose if we were given more opportunities for open discussion about the temple, I could have come to that realization sooner.

Cha-ching:

[UtahDan]

I agree that big changes are unlikely in the future. Partly because there is less and less to cut.

The endowment = evolving teaching mechanism as opposed to perfect revelation model also makes me feel more comfortable about the masonic elements. That bothers me a lot less than it used to. I suppose if we were given more opportunities for open discussion about the temple, I could have come to that realization sooner.

Cha-ching:

I don't know what is says about me or us collectively, but whenever I see someone on here share an insight that one would not be likely to gain in church I always think of this scene:

[YOUTUBE]R09jFWQVrE0[/YOUTUBE]

Anakin: Is it possible to learn this power?

Palpatine: Not from a Jedi.

[LA Ute]

Ooh, or what about a symbolic necklace?

I thought about going there but lacked the guts. Obviously that was not a problem for you.

[UtahDan]

I thought about going there but lacked the guts. Obviously that was not a problem for you.

I'm younger and people expect less of me, LA. You have a lot more to lose.