Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Garments being shown

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 10
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 10 template Next
  • #1

    Garments being shown

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...d-atheist.html

    Does this bother you?

    There are lots of definitions of a "cult" but dictating what underwear you are allowed to wear is definitely one of the definitions of a cult.

    Joseph Smith never associated garments with the endowment like we do today (JS did not place garments on people during the endowment during his lifetime, there were garments, but not like today)--It really was a Woodruff thing in St. George that was adopted by the Church later. And it doesn't make any sense in the Adam/Eve context. The leaves/apron cover the nakedness. Why the extra garments? Did God not want to see? Did Adam and Eve desire extra additional coverings and God gave skins to them as a favor? Was it just an early form of modesty being enforced (even though the only people around were Adam and Eve and they were married and had lived in the nude with each other for a long long time)? Our narrative doesn't make sense.

    And we never actually covenant to wear garments in the Temple. We are given them and instructed, but there is no covenant.

    Hebrew scholars say that the Genesis passage is understood wrongly today, that the original text said that God placed human flesh upon Adam and Eve--he made them subject to entropy and death, made them human as part of the fall. When cast out, animals were not killed and skinned and clothes sewn. But rather a skin was placed on Adam and Eve where before they were clothed in immortality. Now that makes sense.

    Maybe our funny underwear is all a misguided Puritanical/Victorian modesty falsely dressed up in religious dogma.
    A Mormon president could make a perfectly patriotic, competent, inspiring leader. But not Mitt Romney. He is a husked void. --David Javerbaum
    Tags: None
  • #2
    In DH's thread about whether mormons are Christians, there was discussion about whether or not it matters and maybe it might actually be a good thing that we aren't Christians. Fwiw, I couldn't care less. I look at "accusations" of mormons belonging to a cult in a similar manner. While the term carries a negative connotation to some, if the alleged cult teaches goodness/Christlike actions, then who gives a shit if we're a cult?
    Last edited by smokymountainrain; 06-14-2012, 07:51 AM.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by The Rambam View Post
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...d-atheist.html

      Does this bother you?
      No, it doesn't. There are many ways to achieve the purpose of the garment (remind us of our covenants) without having to use the garment. My hope is that they are displayed enough that the church leaders finally say "Okay, that's weird we are no longer going to do that" similar to what has happened to other things that have changed. The more exposure the garment gets, the faster we'll move towards not having it.

      Don't take me wrong, I like being reminded of my covenants and I wear the garment, but I look forward to the day that we no longer wear them.

      Hebrew scholars say that the Genesis passage is understood wrongly today, that the original text said that God placed human flesh upon Adam and Eve--he made them subject to entropy and death, made them human as part of the fall. When cast out, animals were not killed and skinned and clothes sewn. But rather a skin was placed on Adam and Eve where before they were clothed in immortality. Now that makes sense.
      Hmmm, I'm not seeing the sense. So they were immortal, sinned (or transgressed) and then God made them immortal by putting a skin on them? Did they have skin before? Did he remove the immortal skin? Are we immortal under our skin?

      I like the interpretation that we became aware of our carnality (sensuality) and therefore sought to cover it up. It's like placing religion on the human race as a way to try to temper our own carnal inhibitions.
      "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by Moliere View Post
        Hmmm, I'm not seeing the sense. So they were immortal, sinned (or transgressed) and then God made them immortal by putting a skin on them? Did they have skin before? Did he remove the immortal skin? Are we immortal under our skin?

        I like the interpretation that we became aware of our carnality (sensuality) and therefore sought to cover it up. It's like placing religion on the human race as a way to try to temper our own carnal inhibitions.
        God made them mortal by putting a skin on them.

        The leaves, symbolized by the apron, were to cover the nakedness. The garments don't serve that purpose in the Adam/Eve Fall story. They are superfluous.
        A Mormon president could make a perfectly patriotic, competent, inspiring leader. But not Mitt Romney. He is a husked void. --David Javerbaum

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by The Rambam View Post
          God made them mortal by putting a skin on them.

          The leaves, symbolized by the apron, were to cover the nakedness. The garments don't serve that purpose in the Adam/Eve Fall story. They are superfluous.
          I don't like that interpretation, but to each their own.

          I much prefer to think of it as a covering, in effect God giving them religion or a way to deal with the carnality. I understand the leaves, but God didn't give them the leaves. In fact, they made the leaves themselves as a way to hide. That's why I've always wondered why we continue to wear the leaves since it is worldly in nature. Even Satan wears an apron.
          "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

          Comment

          • #6
            It bothers me less than the fact that they didn't use the picture of the actual couple in the article.
            Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

            There's three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who's got the same first name as a city; and never go near a lady's got a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Moliere View Post
              No, it doesn't. There are many ways to achieve the purpose of the garment (remind us of our covenants) without having to use the garment. My hope is that they are displayed enough that the church leaders finally say "Okay, that's weird we are no longer going to do that" similar to what has happened to other things that have changed. The more exposure the garment gets, the faster we'll move towards not having it.

              Don't take me wrong, I like being reminded of my covenants and I wear the garment, but I look forward to the day that we no longer wear them.
              No offense, but the chances of the church ditching garments (or even easing up on the wearing requirements) are somewhere between letting gays marry in the temple and women receiving the priesthood. It would certainly be welcome, but it's just too ingrained in the culture.
              "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
              "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
              - SeattleUte

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                No offense, but the chances of the church ditching garments (or even easing up on the wearing requirements) are somewhere between letting gays marry in the temple and women receiving the priesthood. It would certainly be welcome, but it's just too ingrained in the culture.
                There was a time when people in the Church would have sworn that garments would never become as skimpy as they are now. I had missionary companion who told me about a family friend who was RLDS and would complain about how much the Mormons had changed the garment. The friend said, "Pretty soon you guys will just be carrying the marks around in your pocket."
                "The mind is not a boomerang. If you throw it too far it will not come back." ~ Tom McGuane

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                  No offense, but the chances of the church ditching garments (or even easing up on the wearing requirements) are somewhere between letting gays marry in the temple and women receiving the priesthood. It would certainly be welcome, but it's just too ingrained in the culture.
                  Agreed. In fact the church seems to be getting more strict in regard to the wearing of the garment - even adding verbiage to the TR interview questions to account for it.
                  I'm like LeBron James.
                  -mpfunk

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                    No offense, but the chances of the church ditching garments (or even easing up on the wearing requirements) are somewhere between letting gays marry in the temple and women receiving the priesthood. It would certainly be welcome, but it's just too ingrained in the culture.
                    you make me very unhappy. I'm rooting for all three of these things to happen.
                    Awesomeness now has a name. Let me introduce myself.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      lol. great article.

                      The benefits also affected their relationship as married adults. She recalled: 'When I shed my garments for slippery Victoria Secret panties, my self-esteem skyrocketed, and our late nights shifted to other things.
                      Fitter. Happier. More Productive.
                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by nikuman View Post
                        you make me very unhappy. I'm rooting for all three of these things to happen.
                        I hear you.
                        "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                        "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                        - SeattleUte

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                          No offense, but the chances of the church ditching garments (or even easing up on the wearing requirements) are somewhere between letting gays marry in the temple and women receiving the priesthood. It would certainly be welcome, but it's just too ingrained in the culture.
                          The garment was not always in its current form. It used to go to the ankles and wrists. It was in the early 1900s that the authorized pattern could be shortened to the knees and short sleeves, however at that time the full garment (to the ankles and wrists) was still required to be worn in the temple. I guess I just see a time (not next year but maybe before I die) when we no longer are required to wear it, except for when we do certain ordinances in the temple.

                          Maybe it's wishful thinking, but then again maybe the members that wished for the elimination of the PH ban, or for openly gay members to be able to hold temple recommends and serving in leadership callings in the church, or the elimination of polygamy and a stop to the preaching that only through polygamy would we become gods.

                          There is usually a retrenchment before there is a change/relaxation.
                          "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                            The garment was not always in its current form. It used to go to the ankles and wrists. It was in the early 1900s that the authorized pattern could be shortened to the knees and short sleeves, however at that time the full garment (to the ankles and wrists) was still required to be worn in the temple. I guess I just see a time (not next year but maybe before I die) when we no longer are required to wear it, except for when we do certain ordinances in the temple.

                            Maybe it's wishful thinking, but then again maybe the members that wished for the elimination of the PH ban, or for openly gay members to be able to hold temple recommends and serving in leadership callings in the church, or the elimination of polygamy and a stop to the preaching that only through polygamy would we become gods.

                            There is usually a retrenchment before there is a change/relaxation.
                            I understand there is certainly a precedent in hoping that garments go away. But I just don't see it happening. The phrase "an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior" is used both within the church and press releases, to signify the importance of garments. For better or (mostly) worse, it has become the easiest way to gauge a member's level of righteousness.

                            Now it could certainly be modified as in the past. I've heard hopes that the sleeves could be done away with, since there are no symbols in that area. But again, those sleeves are protecting the next generation of priesthood from evil thoughts and wanton desires.
                            "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                            "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                            - SeattleUte

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                              lol. great article.
                              The benefits also affected their relationship as married adults. She recalled: 'When I shed my garments for slippery Victoria Secret panties, my self-esteem skyrocketed, and our late nights shifted to other things.
                              This sister apparently never heard that she can wear the lingerie over the top of her Gs. Problem solved!

                              Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
                              - Howard Aiken

                              Any sufficiently complicated platform contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of a functional programming language.
                              - Variation on Greenspun's Tenth Rule

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 10 template Next
                              Working...
                              X