Garment confusion

[dahlia]

One of the elders who gave me lessons recently got married and put up pictures of the honeymoon.

It took me a moment to notice, but there were a number of pics of both he and the bride wearing clothes that clearly did not cover their garments. They were sealed in the temple, so I don't have any reason to think he's left the Church between the sealing and the honeymoon.

They are in a tropical location wearing spaghetti strapped sundresses, no shirt (for him), tank tops, and some rather short shorts. These are not pictures of them laying around on the beach, for which there might be some excuse.

My understanding was that garments could only be removed for the 3 S's. I don't see where tooling around an exotic location counts as one of them.

Why is it my concern - because this is one of the guy's who gave me lessons, who told me what LDS life was like. Now what am I supposed to think? Do Mormons tend to shed the garments in places where others won't know they are Mormon? Is there a honeymoon exemption?

[Guest]

Some people make exemptions for themselves. I happen to not agree with them.

[Suzie]

Why is it my concern - because this is one of the guy's who gave me lessons, who told me what LDS life was like. Now what am I supposed to think? Do Mormons tend to shed the garments in places where others won't know they are Mormon? Is there a honeymoon exemption?

No honeymoon exception but like Eowyn said, some people make those exceptions for themselves every time they are on vacation or the weather is too hot.

[Traveler]

There are conditions, reasons and situations when garments should not be worn just as there are times and places when they should be worn. There is in my mind a very simple logic that can be deployed to easily discern what is proper that is associated with the question - “What would Jesus do?”

Also keep in mind that the “official” instructions given are connected (in scientific terms - tightly coupled) to the covenant we take upon ourselves directly associated with purpose for wearing the garment as we are so commanded. Two points or principles that we must be both aware and understanding:

One: That G-d cannot be mocked. Those that think to do so condemn themselves.

Two: What is risked is spiritual protection of the individual that is disloyal to their covenant.

Thus many are called but few are chosen.

The Traveler

[Vort]

The understanding of one's covenants and how to live them vary from person to person, and even in the same person across his/her lifetime. Given only what you have written, I would guess this return missionary to be young and relatively callow, perhaps moreso than many in his situation.

Shortly after marrying, my wife and I were talking with her friend and her friend's new husband, who told us they recently returned from their honeymoon in France. When I jokingly asked if they hit the nude beaches, they looked at us in all earnestness and said, "Well, everyone else was doing it, and we were married, so we didn't see a problem." They then volunteered that, now that they were married, they also hadn't seen anything wrong with enjoying a little porn... In the years since, I decided they could not have been serious and were probably pulling our leg, but my wife still doesn't think they were joking.

So even good people can allow themselves to get sucked into all sorts of scummy things. I would think that something like spaghetti straps and generally just going garmet-less while on vacation would be quite easy for many to justify, certainly moreso than nude beaches and pornography.

[dahlia]

It's disappointing. Surely he must realize that the baptizees that he's FB friends with will see the pictures and wonder why they aren't wearing garments.

And yes, they are young. I guess he's 22-ish, but then, so was I when I got married. I'd like think that I would keep my covenants, even at 22.

[Dravin]

He probably doesn't view it as violating his covenants, so it's unlikely he's thinking, "Other people might wonder why I'm violating my covenants." Even within the 3 S guidelines people draw the lines differently and by and large they stand on the side of the line they classify as being in harmony with their covenants.

[Guest]

There are a couple of ladies in my ward who are workout fanatics. You'll more often see them in tight, short, workout wear, whether they're around the neighborhood or running errands, than in clothes compatible with garments. Most of their pictures on FB are in tanks and short shorts. I'm sure it's because they're either coming from or going to the gym (eventually), but they've made a reputation for being the scantily clad duo.

It's hard not to judge, and hard to see how they justify that. It's certainly not "night and day" garment wearing.

[classylady]

I wouldn't be too quick to judge. I've dressed in my swim wear with a pair of shorts and top pulled over it prior to going to the lake or beach (which was a long drive), and then driving back home in the same get up. There really wasn't much of a place to change at the lake, just out-houses, which you didn't want to spend any length of time in because of the smell and filth. It could be something as simple as that.

[dahlia]

There were a lot of pictures, classylady. I looked around to make sure they weren't at the beach, etc. and they weren't. I was willing to cut them some slack : ) if I could see they were on the hotel beach and maybe going back and forth, but no, a lot of the pictures were of everywhere but the beach.

This gives me a whole 'nother view of garments and LDS.

[classylady]

He and his wife probably don't see anything wrong with what they're doing. If so, I doubt they'd be posting the pictures on Facebook. And when they are asked in their temple recommend interview if they wear the garments as they should, they will probably say yes, and absolutely believe it. As Dravin said "people draw the lines differently and by and large they stand on the side of the line they classify as being in harmony with their covenants."

[Dravin]

It is always kinda interesting watching recent converts come to the realization (or further realization) that LDS in general, and those most closely involved with their conversion in particular, are imperfect. The exact imperfection that brings the realization varies, and sometimes is something perceived rather than real, but it is sorta like watching a kid realize that Dad isn't Superman.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest]

This gives me a whole 'nother view of garments and LDS.

In any case, what the person that baptized/taught you wears has nothing to do with your own covenants. His covenants is between him and the Lord and yours is too.

[mnn727]

Different people follow their Covenants differently.

I will cook with wine at times, others wouldn't be caught dead with wine in the house.

Some people won't drink caffeinated soda, others have no problem with it.

Some people relax their garment standards while on vacation some do not.

Some of the Young Women (and older women) in my ward wear dresses/skirts a few inches above the knee, others wouldn't be caught dead with their knee's showing.

Rather than judging others I prefer to judge myself. Am I living up to my covenants?

Just because Sister X drinks Mountain Dew or Elder Y wears a muscle shirt on their honeymoon doesn't mean the Gospel is no longer true or that the garment's meaning are not what is taught. It means people are humans and humans are imperfect and have different understandings and practices of Gospel Principles.

Edited December 30, 2013 by mnn727

[Leah]

It is always kinda interesting watching recent converts come to the realization (or further realization) that LDS in general, and those most closely involved with their conversion in general, are imperfect. The exact imperfection that brings the realization varies, and sometimes is something perceived rather than real, but it is sorta like watching a kid realize that Dad isn't Superman.

What a condescending view of converts.

Dahlia isn't stupid or naive. She knows no one is perfect.

She is commenting on a situation wherein the non-wearing of garments runs counter to the instructions given to us in the temple and the covenants we make to wear them (no matter how all of y'all try to spin it to justify it). She is sad and dismayed because of her personal connection to this person. Her reaction is logical. It's not about someone finding out the Easter bunny doesn't exist.

Reading this forum continues to give one the impression that all church teachings are optional. That it's all about what the individual wants to do and they just have to throw out some lame disclaimer about God said it was cool for THEM to do it. Or that the rules are different for those that grew up in the church. Or live in Utah. That must be why I did not get the instruction during my endowment "Skip wearing your garments when you go on vacation".

[Traveler]

There were a lot of pictures, classylady. I looked around to make sure they weren't at the beach, etc. and they weren't. I was willing to cut them some slack : ) if I could see they were on the hotel beach and maybe going back and forth, but no, a lot of the pictures were of everywhere but the beach.

This gives me a whole 'nother view of garments and LDS.

dahlia, you are touching on some principles that are far deeper than just the topic of this thread. I will try to makes some sense of all this.

I believe that as important as an individual is and likewise having individuality it is also important to socially have "one heart" among the saints of G-d. Jesus said quite simply - if you are not one, you are not mine.

Now to deal with real life - For many years I competed as an amateur cyclists. In short the human body must breath to operate efficiently and I discovered that I could not compete and wear the garment. This was most difficult realization. I ended up opening up a dialog with authorities in SLC. I suggested that a special exercise and competition garment be made so that amateur and professionals involved in sports could discreetly maintain the symbolism of their covenants while involved in such activity.

I was informed that the if such an alternative was given that it would be abused and use in general rather than for specific purposes. That the standard garment was exactly that - the standard garment for all and that it is better for the body of saints to not seek out exceptions.

As a scientist I have been intrigued by unity and the possibilities of individuals committed to a "Hive Mind". So I have come to realize the importance of being one and the unity of believers. Like a choir the sound is ruined if one or a few sing on perfect pitch if the majority is in harmony but slightly off pitch. Of course the optimum is for a choir to have both precise pitch and harmony but harmony must come first.

But when do we compromise standards and when do we harmonize? There is a point where standard is more important then to harmonize - but when and how do we know such things. I wish I understood such things and could give a standard answer. Many time I have attempted to offer a standard in discussions on this forum and found myself out of harmony with "good" well meaning and spiritual individuals. I am not the example I ought to be or often think I am.

For the record, dahlia, I believe from what I have read from your posts, that even though you and I are very much, different individuals - that we could perform with much better harmony than I could with many with whom I find more similarities.

Thank you for your inputs and fresh convert views.

The Traveler

[applepansy]

It's disappointing. Surely he must realize that the baptizees that he's FB friends with will see the pictures and wonder why they aren't wearing garments.

And yes, they are young. I guess he's 22-ish, but then, so was I when I got married. I'd like think that I would keep my covenants, even at 22.

He probably isn't even thinking about that. But maybe some day he will.

[applepansy]

There were a lot of pictures, classylady. I looked around to make sure they weren't at the beach, etc. and they weren't. I was willing to cut them some slack : ) if I could see they were on the hotel beach and maybe going back and forth, but no, a lot of the pictures were of everywhere but the beach.

This gives me a whole 'nother view of garments and LDS.

Please remember that all members are not the same. Not all members are on the same level of progression as all other members.

My aunt said once "I have a hard time understanding and relating to members who are not on the same level of progression as I am." She didn't mean she was on a higher level, just a different level. The older I get the more I feel the same way.

I do not understand not wearing garments when its entirely possible to do so. On our honeymoon my husband and I stopped by Bear Lake to spend a day with his extended family. We changed in the bathrooms when we got there and changed back before we left the lake. I'm on the side of not understanding taking off garments for vacations or anniversaries etc. I just don't get it. But then... I"m not in there shoes. I'll leave judgement to Christ but it does make me uncomfortable and it does make me wonder about their commitment to covenants.

[Dravin]

What a condescending view of converts.

If anything it's a condescending view of people because the process isn't unique to converts, it's a people phenomenon. Of course I don't consider myself superior as I do it too, I'm just not in a position to observe it from the outside when it involves me. I suppose one can argue it's still a view of converts because it's a view that includes converts, but without the superiority aspect it fails being condescending. You see it is interesting watching not because I'm above it all, but because I go through it too.

Dahlia isn't stupid or naive.

We're in agreement there, at least to the degree that she isn't anymore than any other average person.

She knows no one is perfect.

Of course she does, on an intellectual level, so we're in agreement there. Of course having it hit home viscerally is something different.

Her reaction is logical.

Did I say it wasn't? Nope. Well, glad we're in agreement.

It's not about someone finding out the Easter bunny doesn't exist.

Considering I didn't say it was because it looks like we're in agreement on that point. You see what I'm saying it is about is people realizing that their mental image/expectation of people has put someone on a pedestal, one they've subsequently fallen from.

That out of the way:

She is commenting on a situation wherein the non-wearing of garments runs counter to the instructions given to us in the temple and the covenants we make to wear them (no matter how all of y'all try to spin it to justify it).

Who justified it? I can think of one person as of your posting, arguably, but they didn't justify a honeymoon/vacation exemption. I'm used to "y'all" as a plural, but it isn't a native colloquialism for me so maybe I'm misunderstanding its use but I'd expect there to be at least one more person.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Dravin

[Backroads]

With no intention to either condone or condemn this couples' actions, some thoughts:

There seems to be a mentality among some (and I wouldn't even say a huge number) that the S of Sex includes all the romancing and seduction aspects, including the "date". So you'll see a lack of garments on a romantic excursion that may or may not be public. Some won't wear garments all the time or the honeymoon or anniversary or romantic getaway as the classify the event under the S of Sex.

By and large, I'm of the opinion that if the individual or couple feels justified and at peace with what they are doing, far be it from me to worry too much about it--I probably have garment protocols of my own I'm just fine with that would scandalize these same people.

But, when I do think about it and form an opinion, I am slightly irked at the behavior (probably because it simply goes beyond my own practices of garment-wearing). I don't think the need to wear a sleeveless outfit justifies not wearing garments.

I heard a man's tale (both on this site and another and I'm convinced it was the same guy asking for input everywhere) where he and his wife, in order to "better the marriage" were in the habit of removing their garments shortly after each arrived home from work. The way this guy explained it, he felt they were still in keeping with the garment-wearing instructions, but it also seemed they misunderstood that wearing the garment was simply for modesty's sake and that modesty was unnecessary around each other. Last I heard, the man was rethinking this philosophy (but I grew bored of that forum and I don't think he ever returned here). I, personally, did not agree with it.

So, just some thoughts and some judgment after the fact to perhaps give insight into what this elder and his wife were thinking.

[applepansy]

Reading this forum continues to give one the impression that all church teachings are optional. That it's all about what the individual wants to do and they just have to throw out some lame disclaimer about God said it was cool for THEM to do it. Or that the rules are different for those that grew up in the church. Or live in Utah. That must be why I did not get the instruction during my endowment "Skip wearing your garments when you go on vacation".

Leah, We all have agency. We all get to choose. We don't get to condemn. So when we see someone living the commandments is a way in which we wouldn't then its appropriate to say "its their choice", because it is their choice. We all get to choose.

We all get to suffer the consequences of our choices. But we don't get to choose those consequences.

The rules aren't different. But again agency plays a role. I understand it can get confusing for new converts who often have a deeper commitment than someone who has grown up in the church and hasn't really had to sacrifice or work for their beliefs. When they do... and they will have to eventually because we are a church of converts ... then we often see a change in behavior.

[dahlia]

I don't think I'm judging the couple, but maybe I am. Most of the adults I know in the ward are endowed. I have been around them on the hottest days of the year, in casual clothes, and never seen anyone dressed in a manner that makes it obvious they are not wearing their garments. Maybe I'm just curious why this RM would behave any differently.

I could almost understand an RM leaving the Church rather than not wearing garments and taking pictures that advertise that fact. And yeah, I know the Church is perfect, the people aren't, but this isn't a big theological deal which might cause some internal struggle, it should be very simple - put the garments on. If you can't do the easy stuff...

[Dravin]

If you really want to know his thought process, ask him (not publicly). A simple joke, "Airline lose your luggage?" could get the whole thing started, as unless you ask him specifically the best understanding you are gonna be able to get is, "He either views it as being in harmony with his covenants or views it as a minor transgression* that can be justified by the special occasion." I suppose people can hypothesize why such is the case, but unless it is from the horse's mouth you'll be limited to possibilities rather than actuality.

*Rarely are people villains in their own mind. If they don't fully rationalize something as acceptable they generally manage to categorize it as minor.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

I don't think I'm judging the couple, but maybe I am.

Doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds like you're part confused, but mostly just disappointed.

[Swiper]

If you really want to know his thought process, ask him (not publicly).

Not sure if that's a good idea. I know plenty of people that would be greatly offended by unsolicited inquiries into their choice of clothing.