Temple Recommends

[Juan_P]

From the post above ""It is expected that members will wear the garment

both night and day according to covenants

made in the temple."

When did we "covenant" to do this? Now, I'm just a poor dumb country boy, but I seem to remember this as part of the instructions and not a covenant. I don't ever remember promising/covenanting to do this.

-RM

The covenant is made during the endowment ceremony in the Temple.

Also we used to have to read a statement from the first presidency concerning garment use which, basically, said it is something between the member and the Lord and one needs to seek out the spirit's guide when considering different situations. One should be reasonable about garment use but not fanatical.

Concerning the questions I think the last time they changed was when they added the question on child support for a previous marriage, which would have been around '96 if my memory is correct. Before that there was a slight change in the 70's over non confessed sins and before that they added the word of wisdom question during president Grants time but this was all before my time so it's only what I've heard over time.

[Tyler90AZ]

Yes, I was actually at the Manhattan Temple today! Basically the first floor is divided between the temple entrance and the regular entrance. The first floor of the temple also has the baptistry. The second floor has the distribution center and the public affairs office, the third floor has the chapel and cultural hall (and some other rooms), and the 4th, 5th and 6th floors are all the temple. Pretty interesting. On Sundays, Mondays, and other days when the temple is closed, they open up the temple elevator (you can access it from inside the temple or they open up this wall or something when the temple is closed) and it goes up to the public floors.

Do you know if the Hong Kong Temple is similar?

[dahlia]

I had to read the statement about garments aloud at both interviews. I thought it was a bit much, but maybe there's some issue with garment wearing going on?

[bytebear]

Do you know if the Hong Kong Temple is similar?

The Hong Kong China Temple was the first multipurpose temple built by the Church, as envisioned and sketched by President Gordon B. Hinckley in the nighttime hours following a pleading prayer.

The Kowloon Tong chapel, Hong Kong mission home, and Hong Kong mission office, which stood on side-by-side lots, were all razed to make way for the Hong Kong China Temple. The temple houses replacement facilities for all of these buildings.

Hong Kong China LDS (Mormon) Temple

[laffopuritain]

Seems a tad controlling......i live in Florida, monstrously hot and humid. i will work outside without a shirt if I choose and I choose because the Lord blessed me with common sense and common sense suggests that I not have a heat stroke.

So what you're saying then is you can not answer the Temple Recommend question with a 'yes'? I live in Florida as well, by the way. Fort Walton Beach. Probably not as far south as you, but it is completely possible to mow your lawn with a shirt.

[uniderth]

Should Temple recommend questions be answered with simple yes or no? Or are essay answers also acceptable.

[laffopuritain]

Should Temple recommend questions be answered with simple yes or no? Or are essay answers also acceptable.

Good point. Sorry I overstepped. I'm not a judge in Israel, and don't have the right to imply the accusations I did.

[uniderth]

Sorry, I didn't mean to make that direct reply to your post. I was just curious what people's thoughts were.

[laffopuritain]

I was just curious what people's thoughts were.

You're actually completely right. Bishops are encouraged to ask for longer answers, actually. The Recommend Interviews are supposed to be a time to not only declare your worthiness, but also to explore testimonies of principles. A simple 'yes' or 'no' doesn't go nearly as far as telling about a time you struggled with something and overcame it, or telling about something you may not be at the level you feel you should be.

[Dravin]

Sorry, I didn't mean to make that direct reply to your post. I was just curious what people's thoughts were.

Nothing wrong with extended answers and discussion during an interview. I would think though that if one feels like they need the acceptability of something clarified or gone over that scheduling an appointment to discuss that before an interview appointment would be preferable. In some areas you have open interview nights where people just show up at the building and wait to be interviewed, and they can go fairly quick. I could see one feeling self-conscious knowing there are 3 or 4 people waiting to get in to see the Stake President or Bishop while you take time to discuss the issue (which you are fully in your right to do, don't get me wrong).

Edited March 2, 2012 by Dravin

[RMGuy]

I think most of us would acknowledge that when a person is baptized they are making a covenant, even though they don't say anything (not even a simple "yes" or "I will") as they make that covenant.

Similarly, one might make a case that the initiatory--and the instructions pertaining to it--constitute a covenant regardless of whether the recipient actually vocalizes that covenant during the ordinance.

Your baptism example is apropos, however, we refer to it as the baptismal covenant and we are taught from our earliest days in the church that the sacrament is to renew our baptismal covenants. However, this is the only place that I can find that the church has started to refer to a 'covenant' in relation to the garment. Even in the temple it is referred to as instructions on wearing the garment. If the intent is different than that, perhaps we should make it clear. I have a hard time ethically holding people to promises that they didn't even know that they made.

Instructions are much different that covenants. I will stick by the point that I never made a covenant to do so (though I do try to give heed to the instructions that I have received). If it was implied that this was a covenant relationship then it was not implied very well.

-RM

[RMGuy]

The covenant is made during the endowment ceremony in the Temple.

QUOTE]

First, thank you for your edit.

I am pretty familiar with the endowment. I can think of 3 places during which the garment is mentioned.

First instance talks about how we were "instructed" to wear it.

Second instance explains the relationship between what you have done and what was done previously

Third instance as it relates to the veil.

Unless I am missing one, there is no covenant here either.

-RM

[Just_A_Guy]

Your baptism example is apropos, however, we refer to it as the baptismal covenant and we are taught from our earliest days in the church that the sacrament is to renew our baptismal covenants. However, this is the only place that I can find that the church has started to refer to a 'covenant' in relation to the garment. Even in the temple it is referred to as instructions on wearing the garment. If the intent is different than that, perhaps we should make it clear. I have a hard time ethically holding people to promises that they didn't even know that they made.

Instructions are much different that covenants. I will stick by the point that I never made a covenant to do so (though I do try to give heed to the instructions that I have received). If it was implied that this was a covenant relationship then it was not implied very well.

-RM

I think there's specific wording in the initiatory--repeated in the endowment--that (in very vague terms) outlines our responsibility with regard to the garment and promises certain blessings if we live up to that responsibility. My understanding is that a set of mutual obligations between God and man such as this, by definition establishes a covenant relationship. It is true that we don't typically call that a "covenant"; and perhaps it would be more edifying if the instructions given in the temple openly used that word. But I think the elements are there. Moreover, even if we don't teach that there is a specific covenant associated with wearing the garment properly, we do pretty openly teach that the garment is a token or indicator of the temple covenants generally.

In the end, I wonder whether the "covenant/instruction" distinction is important. Bottom line (on which I think we agree) is that we were told to wear it properly, we should heed that injunction, and we will be blessed for doing so.

[bytor2112]

So what you're saying then is you can not answer the Temple Recommend question with a 'yes'? I live in Florida as well, by the way. Fort Walton Beach. Probably not as far south as you, but it is completely possible to mow your lawn with a shirt.

I live right up the road in Panama City and it is possible, but, i don't like the "controlling" aspect of it all. If I am in my back yard working shirtless because it is hot or I am multi tasking for a tan....so what. I run shirtless as well and wear a tank top at the gym. I am open about it and have never been denied a recommend because of it.

Otherwise I wear garments except for showers and those "other" times....

[Vort]

First instance talks about how we were "instructed" to wear it.

Exactly what do you think constitutes the covenant?

I never covenanted to love God and my fellow man. You cannot point to any covenant in the temple or elsewhere that we make to do that. So therefore I am not under covenant to love God and my fellow man.

Right?

We covenant to follow Christ and to build up his kingdom. That means following the instructions we are given -- for example, to love God and our fellow man, or to wear the garment night and day.

[RMGuy]

I'm sure it won't surprise you Vort to hear that we disagree.

For me there are things that we covenant to do in the church, for example: baptism. It is a recognized covenant. The individual recognizes and is taught that it is a covenant prior to baptism. We talk about renewing our baptisimal covenants each week through the ordinance of the sacrament.

While I do understand where you are coming from, and don't disagree, that we have covenants to obey, sacrifice, and taking upon us the name of Christ. At no time, in the temple or out of it, have I covenanted to wear the garment. As stated above, I do try to be obedient to the instructions that I have been given.

Your logic would mean that we are under covenant to follow every word of instruction that we have been given. For example, am I under covenant to not wear more than one pair of earrings? Am I under covenant to not drink a beer? Am I under covenant to not watch R rated movies? I have recieved all of those instructions and I am obedient to them as well. But to consider such convenants, in my mind, cheapens the understanding of what a real covenant is.

If a member feels like those instructions put them under covenant between them and God then by all means, that is wonderful. However, I take the covenants that I have made, in all aspects of my life, very seriously. I am not amused when someone tells me that I made a promise I never made. That is putting words into my mouth, and that is deceitful.

-RM

[uniderth]

"It is expected that members will wear the garment both night and day according to covenants made in the temple. Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing, even when such clothing may be generally accepted.

The garment should not be removed, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for

other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing."

I guess one way of reading it could be that you are supposed to wear it according to the covenants made in the temple, but not necessarily a wear-your-garment covenant.

For me I try and look at things in a scriptural/historical context. What did Joseph Smith, teach about the garment and how it should be worn? What do the scriptures teach about the garment?

[Jezebel2011]

"It is expected that members will wear the garment both night and day according to covenants made in the temple. Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing, even when such clothing may be generally accepted.

The garment should not be removed, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for

other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing."

I guess one way of reading it could be that you are supposed to wear it according to the covenants made in the temple, but not necessarily a wear-your-garment covenant.

For me I try and look at things in a scriptural/historical context. What did Joseph Smith, teach about the garment and how it should be worn? What do the scriptures teach about the garment?

The way that both the Bishop and the Stake President (whom is American btw, from Utah) explained it to me is that wearing the garments whilst running a marathon would not be possible, or whilst swimming, but that they should be put back on as soon as possible afterwards.

They advise that we wear cotton garments for doing yard work (gardening to us!) and suchlike.

Our missionaries wear their garments even when it is a blazing hot Summer and doing gardening for Church Members - have seen that for myself.

I guess the simple answer is that we can start slipping up and not wearing garments when we should be.

Am not going to get into the history of garments, have read the historical reports on the whys and wherefores, since in Joseph Smith's time Members were not all required to wear them.

It seems to me that a lot of the original rules & regulations from JS's time have been changed over the years, including the WoW.

I had a little controversy with one of our past missionaries over the WoW itself, since another Member thought it perfectly alright to drink a glass of wine when she fancied it and I said that it wasn't. The missionary said, and I quote "the WoW is not a commandment it is only a guideline". Needless to say I didn't and I don't agree with him since he was not correct and we had long discussion about it but I didn't succeed.

.

[Jezebel2011]

This is a beautiful piece of writing -

The Temple Garment: ?An Outward Expression of an Inward Commitment? - Liahona Sept. 1999 - liahona

and one of many of the most the important quotes from it

And in a letter to priesthood leaders dated 10 October 1988, the First Presidency made the following important statements regarding how the garment should be worn:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. This sacred covenant is between the member and the Lord. Members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves any personal questions about the wearing of the garment. … The promise of protection and blessings is conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness in keeping the covenant.

.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Jezebel2011

[Traveler]

Have the requirements to obtain a Temple recommend changed over the years? If yes, what specifically?

Thanks,

Bytor

A lot has changed regarding the temple during my lifetime. I find it interesting that the questions I have been asked as well as the answers I have given has changed over the years - both in substance and purpose. I believe this has a lot to do with challenges occurring in social norms and morals.

With that said - I do not believe that the "spirit" of temple, the covenants, nor the universal purpose or need for the temple has changed - since Adam and Eve.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

...

And in a letter to priesthood leaders dated 10 October 1988, the First Presidency made the following important statements regarding how the garment should be worn:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. This sacred covenant is between the member and the Lord. Members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves any personal questions about the wearing of the garment. … The promise of protection and blessings is conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness in keeping the covenant.

.

When I was younger I rode a bicycle in competition. When I began I wore clothing that would allow me to wear my temple garments. It became quite apparent that this was most certainly physically foolish.

I made an appeal to “The Brethren” that “special” covenants garments be made for individuals competing in sports – similar to the garment created for those in the military. The bottom line (no pun intended) was that great care is taken to maintain sacred reference and tradition concerning the temple garment. The biggest concern by the brethren is the lack of respect many have for the garment and that any creation of “special” garments not contribute in any to abuses and respect of covenants. If I understand the advice I received – and I believe that I do – the attitude one has for their temple garment is not just a covenant between that individual and G-d but also a type and shadow – or if you will – an example to others. And as such we should have an attitude of helping one another rather than becoming a temptation or stumbling block.

But regardless – I am sure that there are some that will find some way or excuse to criticize what we have been asked to do rather than find the joy of obedience and discipline.

The Traveler

[Tyler90AZ]

I was asked in my first Temple Recommend interview if I would wear the Garments at all times. That to me is a covenant... Is that not standard operating procedure for the first Temple Recommend interview?

From my understanding one of the reasons we don't learn about the Garment covenant in church is because it is sacred. Also I was instructed, I think in the Temple, to never have my Garments showing. That leads me to believe that non-members are not suppose to really know about them, don't throw your pearls to pigs kind off thing. Back when the Church was first restored, I am sure that applied more. Obviously through technology and other means, everybody knows about Garments, so as members we don't strictly enforce that policy.

[uniderth]

Am not going to get into the history of garments, have read the historical reports on the whys and wherefores, since in Joseph Smith's time Members were not all required to wear them.

Isn't that still true today? The temple is not a requirement for anyone. Therefore wearing garments are also not a requirement.

It seems to me that a lot of the original rules & regulations from JS's time have been changed over the years, including the WoW.

For me personally I don't believe God has changed any of the original rules and regulations. They certainly haven't been changed in the scriptures. The only change I can find in Section 89 is the comma added in verse 13 after the word used. This mysteriously appeared in the 1980's.

There certainly hasn't been a change to verse 2. Of course there could be a revelation I don't know about. But I've never seen one.

But I guess Section 89 is a bit off topic. And I don't mean to sound confrontational. Just stating my personal beliefs.

[RMGuy]

Isn't that still true today? The temple is not a requirement for anyone. Therefore wearing garments are also not a requirement.

For me personally I don't believe God has changed any of the original rules and regulations. They certainly haven't been changed in the scriptures. The only change I can find in Section 89 is the comma added in verse 13 after the word used. This mysteriously appeared in the 1980's.

There certainly hasn't been a change to verse 2. Of course there could be a revelation I don't know about. But I've never seen one.

But I guess Section 89 is a bit off topic. And I don't mean to sound confrontational. Just stating my personal beliefs.

Ummm, I believe that the post you are referring to was intended to show that WoW was not a temple requirement until the 1940's. Prior to that, it wasn't part of the temple recommend interviews.

-RM

[uniderth]

Ummm, I believe that the post you are referring to was intended to show that WoW was not a temple requirement until the 1940's. Prior to that, it wasn't part of the temple recommend interviews.

-RM

I must have misread then. I thought that Jezebel2011 was saying that Section 89 had changed from a word of wisdom to a commandment. I was trying to point to the action revelation and illustrate that nothing has changed to the revelation, except that mysterious comma.