Romney

[Moliere]

That is well done. But I don't agree with his take that the only protection temple garments are thought to provide is that of a reminder. That would be news to Willard Richards, among others. I agree that "magic underwear" is a mocking and disrespectful way to say, but I don't really think it is inaccurate, particularly from an outsider's perspective.

It's been decades (which is a long time for a 180 year old church) since this thinking was mainstream. People who believe this today are nutjob fundamentalists that also believe in the white horse prophecy.

[TripletDaddy]

UtahDan is being an imp and suckering you all in with his "I don't have a dog in the fight" stuff. But "protection" is actual language from ordinances with which many of us are familiar. So while the folklore likely stems from the Willard Richards account of yore, it has undoubtedly taken root in contemporary Mormonism because of ongoing vague language in the W/A process and public pronouncements by Mo All-Star types like Bill Marriott and his singed, recreationally-boating knees (obviously a punishment for making millions renting pornography to poor wayfaring men of grief and expense accounts).

People can interpret that word any way which they see fit. As LA Ute would likely agree, this is yet another example wherein things are most likely allegorical, not literal. And really, why should it matter? If we believe that they offer some measure of physical protection, then good for us. If we believe them to be symbolic, then good for us. If we believe that women have no business wearing underwear over the bottoms in an homage to old school lucha libre, then good for us.

[Green Monstah]

It's been decades (which is a long time for a 180 year old church) since this thinking was mainstream. People who believe this today are nutjob fundamentalists that also believe in the white horse prophecy.

I think there are more than you're letting on. I am willing to be 30 to 40% of the endowed members of my ward think that they have a special mystical sin-and-harm repelling quality, but maybe that's the same ratio for nutjob fundies you describe.

[scottie]

I think by doing this, you are definitely minimizing, if not nullifying, the tackiness. But why not just get v-neck undershirts? They would also protect from armpit sweat but they wouldn't show.

I'm gonna try some v-necks now, thanks DH.

[RC Vikings]

I'm gonna try some v-necks now, thanks DH.

Why did you give into Dhole so easily? He's really going to start to believe he knows it all when it comes to fashion.

[Flystripper]

I find it interesting that someone would be screwing around yet would still be wearing their g's because of it being ingrained into their head.

I don't think garment wearers screw around much. It must be the protection!

[UtahDan]

This is a very odd argument you are making. This is what the article said:

Seems like an accurate summary to me.

Also odd that you would bring up Willard Richards as an example. Yes, that is where much of the garment folklore started (JS and others removed their garments because of the heat), but referring to that episode as some kind of proof that there is a doctrinal basis to this is silly.

Did you previously believe that your garments would afford you some kind of magical protection?

What he said was:

Mormons are taught that by putting on "the whole armor of God"--a Biblical metaphor regularly employed in LDS discussions of the subject--they are afforded protection from temptation, in that they have a physical reminder not to sin.

I think the bolded part is not complete. If someone can point me to authority to the contrary, that would change my thinking, obviously. I don't know why you say the Willard Richards example is silly. We all know that story and were taught it somewhere. There is only one reason that story gets told. Also, in the temple they are described as a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer. I realize there is some ambiguity as to what that means, but I don't believe the idea that they are a reminder and no more is mainstream.

Spencer Kimball said this:

“Temple garments afford protection. I am sure one could go to extreme in worshiping the cloth of which the garment is made, but one could also go to the other extreme. Though generally I think our protection is a mental, spiritual, moral one, yet I am convinced that there could be and undoubtedly have been many cases where there has been, through faith, an actual physical protection, so we must not minimize that possibility” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 539)

Honestly, I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. I didn't interject the idea that the church teaches that they are physically protective (though clearly a lot of people think that). I'm just saying that there is ample reason to believe that they are more than just a reminder. If they are more than a reminder then there is something divine and supernatural occurring, even if it is just a protection against Satan and temptation (in addition to being a reminder). What is the big deal about that? Isn't that what you hope is happening?

I think what people are reacting to here, and in general, is that they don't like (understandably) their sacred things being described in unfamiliar language or language that is meant to ridicule. That is why I said in the first place magical underwear is a disrespectful thing to say. I'm not trying to pile on.

[UtahDan]

UtahDan is being an imp and suckering you all in with his "I don't have a dog in the fight" stuff. But "protection" is actual language from ordinances with which many of us are familiar. So while the folklore likely stems from the Willard Richards account of yore, it has undoubtedly taken root in contemporary Mormonism because of ongoing vague language in the W/A process and public pronouncements by Mo All-Star types like Bill Marriott and his singed, recreationally-boating knees (obviously a punishment for making millions renting pornography to poor wayfaring men of grief and expense accounts).

People can interpret that word any way which they see fit. As LA Ute would likely agree, this is yet another example wherein things are most likely allegorical, not literal. And really, why should it matter? If we believe that they offer some measure of physical protection, then good for us. If we believe them to be symbolic, then good for us. If we believe that women have no business wearing underwear over the bottoms in an homage to old school lucha libre, then good for us.

This is sort of what I am getting at. I guess some people don't really think there is anything supernatural going on, but if you do think there is don't shy away from it just because it is being held up to ridicule. Live loud and proud! :rockon1:

[Jeff Lebowski]

What he said was:



I think the bolded part is not complete. If someone can point me to authority to the contrary, that would change my thinking, obviously. I don't know why you say the Willard Richards example is silly. We all know that story and were taught it somewhere. There is only one reason that story gets told. Also, in the temple they are described as a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer. I realize there is some ambiguity as to what that means, but I don't believe the idea that they are a reminder and no more is mainstream.

The first time I heard the Willard Richards story was 2-3 years ago in a discussion of how garment folklore got started. I don't recall ever hearing that story told in an official church setting of an example of how garments are a protection. I seriously doubt one would encounter it in a correlated lesson or talk, given that it shows that JS didn't always wear his garments.

Spencer Kimball said this:

Honestly, I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. I didn't interject the idea that the church teaches that they are physically protective (though clearly a lot of people think that). I'm just saying that there is ample reason to believe that they are more than just a reminder. If they are more than a reminder then there is something divine and supernatural occurring, even if it is just a protection against Satan and temptation (in addition to being a reminder). What is the big deal about that? Isn't that what you hope is happening?

That statement hardly contradicts the point made by the article. The idea that garments protect you from physical harm is mostly folklore, and is not emphasized in the church as doctrinal.

[venkman]

Go pick up a dri-luxe top and you'll see that the scoop doesn't go much lower, if any, than that v-neck (unless you keep it way past its useful life, but the same could be said for any under shirt). This is exactly the reason men in the 30-45 demographic cling to their crew necks--because they remember the nipple-busting scoops that their dads wore and vowed never to wear a scoop neck. So instead, they have nasty, dingy, crumpled crew-necks peeking out from beneath their t-shirts, polos, and button downs.

I endorse this post. The only time I wear crew necks is underneath a t-shirt. I'm even moving away from crew neck under t-shirts...the nipple busting scoops work well for that because the neck is so wide that the g's won't peek over your t-shirt. Plus if you get the mesh, the neck seam is so thin it is unnoticeable under a t-shirt, except for maybe the white ones, and who wears white t-shirts anyway?

[DrumNFeather]

This is sort of what I am getting at. I guess some people don't really think there is anything supernatural going on, but if you do think there is don't shy away from it just because it is being held up to ridicule. Live loud and proud! :rockon1:

You've made similar arguments about Mormons believing that Satan controls the waters...quit being so nit picky!

[Indy Coug]

I believe that keeping your temple covenants may occasionally be a cause for receiving divine protection from physical harm. Part of keeping your temple covenants is wearing your garments.

I do not subscribe to the theory that garments themselves have any protective power beyond whatever additional distance it provides between your body and potential source of injury.

[falafel]

As i said, not all scoops are created equal. The scoops i'm advocating do not go any lower than the v-neck you linked:



Just low enough to not show when worn under a polo or a casual button-down, but not so low that they rub on your chest.

There used to be a v-neck g option. What happened to that? The last time I recall seeing it was around '97.

[UtahDan]

The first time I heard the Willard Richards story was 2-3 years ago in a discussion of how garment folklore got started. I don't recall ever hearing that story told in an official church setting of an example of how garments are a protection. I seriously doubt one would encounter it in a correlated lesson or talk, given that it shows that JS didn't always wear his garments.

That is a good point.

That statement hardly contradicts the point made by the article. The idea that garments protect you from physical harm is mostly folklore, and is not emphasized in the church as doctrinal.

My point wasn't about physical protection. If they really are no more than a reminder, then how would you distinguish them from a CTR ring? I think (could be wrong) that most members would say that temple garments are offering divine protection beyond someone wear a crucifix, for example (which is also a reminder).

[UtahDan]

You've made similar arguments about Mormons believing that Satan controls the waters...quit being so nit picky!

I just don't think you guys have anything to ashamed of here.