Am I going too far?

[Backroads]

Is the cloth covering the Sacrament on the stand sacred? Or is its function sacred?

Does a white shirt symbolize purity? Do garments denote worthiness and a reminder of covenants or are they in fact the covenants themselves and therefore meeting your idea of sacred?

There is no disrespect intended, despite your tone being on a warning level.

A white shirt, as far as I know, does not symbolize purity. I think in many cultures it just looks nice and respectful.

The garment involves covenants. I wear the garment BECAUSE I made covenants. My husband occassionally wears a white shirt because it looks nice, though I prefer his blue Sunday shirts.

I think you are part of culture that makes too big a deal of the white shirt.

[Praetorian_Brow]

White shirts are required because they represent purity. If we were simply striving for a uniform look, there are far less stain attracting shirts available and far more fashionable choices.

I have sat in enough classes were people have passively aggressively attacked me for wearing non-white shirts that I can say what I have said with confidence.

Wear clothing as you will and judge not what other people choose to do, because the far greater "sin" is ones judgement of another, even if you consider their covenants wanting.

Modesty is another discussion.

[skippy740]

White shirts are required because they represent purity.

Where is it written? Church handbook of instructions? Scriptures? Or just in some (though well-considered) opinions of General Authorities?

I have sat in enough classes were people have passively aggressively attacked me for wearing non-white shirts that I can say what I have said with confidence.

If a point of view is attacked without a good defense doesn't mean that it is true or 'gospel'. There was nothing in the scriptures that says that one's priesthood is null and void if you wear anything other than a white shirt.

Just because all the General Authorities wear white shirts, ties and are clean-shaven doesn't mean you must in order to be considered a member in good standing.

Wear clothing as you will and judge not what other people choose to do, because the far greater "sin" is ones judgement of another, even if you consider their covenants wanting.

We are entitled to judge.

JST Matt. 7:1–2 Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment.

Wearing temple garments according to ones covenants is vastly different than man's interpretation of wearing white shirts to show 'purity'.

We wear white in the temple to show purity, but temple worship and ordinances are different from the context in which you are talking about.

[skippy740]

Is the cloth covering the Sacrament on the stand sacred? Or is its function sacred?

It is treated with reverence for its symbolism in the use of the Sacrament. Outside of its use in the Sacrament, it is just an ordinary white cloth.

Does a white shirt symbolize purity? Do garments denote worthiness and a reminder of covenants or are they in fact the covenants themselves and therefore meeting your idea of sacred?

We do not covenant to wear a white shirt. We do covenant to wear the Garment of the Holy Priesthood at all times. It is religious and sacred.

[Praetorian_Brow]

Thanks for answering the rhetorical questions. Again, the point is being missed and if you feel entitled to judge, then nothing I say will be informative, as your mind is already made up. I am saddened that you feel entitled though, as I am confused at how your intent merges with your position, but perhaps I misread your intent as you did mine.

I already share your opinions on the ridiculous nature of the white shirt so some of your observations are moot and your assertions about the nature of sacred is of course a personal opinion, which highlights the initial purpose of my observations.

I always wondered about the defensive need to justify ones own opinion on the degree of sanctity, rather than realizing that the function of the said item is more important than the physical manifestation, but what do I know, as I don't even possess garments and am keen to walk into the jaws of public disdain.

In the interests of self preservation, I shall not comment further as no doubt there will be an avalanche of critical thinking tossed my way as the masses decide I don't understand the context, as I don't posses them and therefore assume I don't understand their sacred nature. That assumption would be in error.

[skippy740]

We're just responding to what you've written and subsequent posts to post #47.

The first part of that post is doctrinally incorrect. When something is doctrinally incorrect, it will be called out. The Garments of the Holy Priesthood are sacred and should be treated as such. This is also why there are specific instructions on how to destroy these garments when they are no longer needed.

The rest of your post, I share your opinion. It is sometimes amusing to see the posts that come asking for public opinion on various topics. It's as though "if everyone else is doing it, it must be okay". Whether it is or isn't... it's as though they're shifting the blame and the thought process to others so they don't have to think about it themselves.

Some are more religiously 'orthodox' than others... and being more strict on the 'letter of the law' over the spirit of the law. I've heard that some will shower in their garments and have marital relations while wearing their garments. I think those that do are a little more extreme in their observing of the commandment to wear the garment at all times.

Some will make up their own little rules that seem 'in line' with gospel teachings... even though there is no root in such little rules. For example: I never leave my garments on the floor. That was the way I was taught. If others do, does that mean they take their covenants less seriously? That's not necessarily for me to judge, but I'd hope they'd be cleaner in their habits. Some actions seem more symbolic than others.

My personal opinion on lingerie: I like it! Men are visually stimulated and having a 'gift wrapped' wife in attractive wrapping is nice! Whatever goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of couples is THEIR business... not mine. That's between them, their Bishop/Stake President and the Lord.

I wouldn't fret over it.

[Anddenex]

I am an active married endowed member of the church. My husband really likes lingerie and after being married for 11 years I have finally started to like it as well. Is it inappropriate to not wear your garments and wear lingerie under your clothes if you are going out on a date with your husband?

At the end of the temple recommend questions bishoprics and stake presidencies are asked to read a section explaining the use of our garments.

One of the statements addressed is that members, endowed members, should wear their garments at all times except in relation to certain activities. In other words, if the activity doesn't inhibit the wearing of garments, i.e. swimming does, then the garments should be worn at all times.

Going out to dinner, if endowed, and not wearing your garments would technically be inappropriate according to the advice we are given from our temple recommend interviews.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Anddenex

[Guest]

PB, have you ever been through the Temple and made the covenants in regard to garments?

[Leah]

We're just responding to what you've written and subsequent posts to post #47.

The first part of that post is doctrinally incorrect. When something is doctrinally incorrect, it will be called out. The Garments of the Holy Priesthood are sacred and should be treated as such. This is also why there are specific instructions on how to destroy these garments when they are no longer needed.

The rest of your post, I share your opinion. It is sometimes amusing to see the posts that come asking for public opinion on various topics. It's as though "if everyone else is doing it, it must be okay". Whether it is or isn't... it's as though they're shifting the blame and the thought process to others so they don't have to think about it themselves.

Some are more religiously 'orthodox' than others... and being more strict on the 'letter of the law' over the spirit of the law. I've heard that some will shower in their garments and have marital relations while wearing their garments. I think those that do are a little more extreme in their observing of the commandment to wear the garment at all times.

Some will make up their own little rules that seem 'in line' with gospel teachings... even though there is no root in such little rules. For example: I never leave my garments on the floor. That was the way I was taught. If others do, does that mean they take their covenants less seriously? That's not necessarily for me to judge, but I'd hope they'd be cleaner in their habits. Some actions seem more symbolic than others.

My personal opinion on lingerie: I like it! Men are visually stimulated and having a 'gift wrapped' wife in attractive wrapping is nice! Whatever goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of couples is THEIR business... not mine. That's between them, their Bishop/Stake President and the Lord.

I wouldn't fret over it.

But this isn't going on behind closed bedroom doors. This is purposefully going out in public without your garments in order for your husband to be sexually stimulated. I think at best it's lame, and I think it's not in keeping with what you've covenanted to do. I know that thought doesn't fly here, Cuz here it,s all about 'if it feels good, do it'.

I can't imagine any circumstance under which I'd say to my husband before we leave the house "Hey hon, wouldn't it be awesome if you left your garments at home".

Lame.

[skippy740]

Ah. In that case, I'd apply the American Express tagline to this subject:

"Don't leave home without (them)."

[Quin]

But this isn't going on behind closed bedroom doors. This is purposefully going out in public without your garments in order for your husband to be sexually stimulated.

Is that necessarilly a bad thing?

My bias, of course, is that I've done the "pick husband up at the airport wearing a trenchcoat & heels" thing. So I've obviously done this. An auto wreck would have been embarassing, but I figured that in the event of being in the ER, I'd have more serious things to worry about. The entire purpose was candy & flowers / perfume & pearls / "hon i did the dishes, put the kids to bed, & vacuumed" male- version. He was my husband. Sex = a goodness.

I can't imagine any circumstance under which I'd say to my husband before we leave the house "Hey hon, wouldn't it be awesome if you left your garments at home".

Lame.

Right?!?!

Woman - I'm not wearing any underwear = Man

Man - I'm not wearing any underwear = Woman "Oh gross! Yuck! Now I'm going to have to wash those pants like 3 times. Ick. Ick. Ick.

Q

[Backroads]

Thanks for answering the rhetorical questions. Again, the point is being missed and if you feel entitled to judge, then nothing I say will be informative, as your mind is already made up. I am saddened that you feel entitled though, as I am confused at how your intent merges with your position, but perhaps I misread your intent as you did mine.

I already share your opinions on the ridiculous nature of the white shirt so some of your observations are moot and your assertions about the nature of sacred is of course a personal opinion, which highlights the initial purpose of my observations.

I always wondered about the defensive need to justify ones own opinion on the degree of sanctity, rather than realizing that the function of the said item is more important than the physical manifestation, but what do I know, as I don't even possess garments and am keen to walk into the jaws of public disdain.

In the interests of self preservation, I shall not comment further as no doubt there will be an avalanche of critical thinking tossed my way as the masses decide I don't understand the context, as I don't posses them and therefore assume I don't understand their sacred nature. That assumption would be in error.

You need to be clearer on your point because too many are missing it.

And if you think garments are on the same level as white shirts, you do not understand their sacred nature. If you have not been endowed, do not claim to "get it" more than those of us who have.

[pam]

Whatever goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of couples is THEIR business... not mine. That's between them, their Bishop/Stake President and the Lord.

I wouldn't fret over it.

I wouldn't even say it's between them and their Bishop/Stake President. The Bishop and Stake President doesn't need to know what goes on behind closed doors unless there is a problem with inappropriateness.

[Just_A_Guy]

Is that necessarilly a bad thing?

Well, I'm not big on the juxtaposition of "sexually stimulated" and "public" in a single sentence. But that's just me, I suppose . . .

[mrmarklin]

You need to be clearer on your point because too many are missing it.

And if you think garments are on the same level as white shirts, you do not understand their sacred nature. If you have not been endowed, do not claim to "get it" more than those of us who have.

I'll stick up for PB a little bit. In my ward, as well as another nearby, people who don't wear white shirts don't administer the sacrament. Yes, there is a period at the end of that sentence.

R

So from a cultural point of view PB has a point.

BTW I don't happen to own a white shirt. Got enough of it on my mission to last a lifetime.

[Guest]

I'll stick up for PB a little bit. In my ward, as well as another nearby, people who don't wear white shirts don't administer the sacrament. Yes, there is a period at the end of that sentence.

R

So from a cultural point of view PB has a point.

BTW I don't happen to own a white shirt. Got enough of it on my mission to last a lifetime.

What does that have to do with garments?