Do we covenant to wear our garments? Covenant, not just agree?

[Hcastle83]

I just recently went through the temple a couple months ago and haven't had the chance to be back yet. I am trying to remember if we covenant in the endowment session to wear our garments day and night, or if we just agree to. For instance, we have to be keeping the Word of Wisdom to enter the temple, but we don't specifically covenant to keep it in the endowment session. I know we have to wear our garments to remain temple worthy, but is not wearing them breaking a covenant- or just making ourselves unworthy? 

[Guest]

A covenant is an agreement.

[Guest]

Semantics. 

 

This is is not pointed at the OP, not knowing the motivation for this question, but I find it baffling how we see so many come through here that are looking for every reason they can not to wear the garment. Are we not adequately teaching its purpose and meaning? Are we not showing enough reverance for them with our children? I honestly don't know.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Eowyn

[zil]

12 hours ago, Hcastle83 said:

For instance, we have to be keeping the Word of Wisdom to enter the temple, but we don't specifically covenant to keep it in the endowment session.

Yes we do.  It's just not named separately (like a bunch of other things aren't named separately - they're all grouped under one term).  I recommend you ask your bishop to see / hear the letter about wearing garments that they (sometimes?) read during temple recommend interviews.  I don't think it would be at all weird to do so - in fact, I think it would be admirable for a newly endowed member to be asking for a refresher.  I also recommend returning to the temple.

NOTE: To me, your question is a six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other question: it doesn't matter whether it's breaking a covenant or just failing to do something we ought - "something we ought" is good enough reason to do it.  That it's asked in the temple recommend interview ought to be more than enough reason to obey.

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

Are we not showing enough reverence for them with our children?

When we were growing up, the clothing we chose (once we were old enough to get a say) had to be clothing which could cover garments.  I cannot remember a time when I didn't know this, which means my parents started us very young.  I didn't know anything about garments, except that you wore them after going through the temple, and where they covered.  Apparently not all parents do this, because it's not unusual for me to see even girls in primary and YW (and sometimes little boys) wearing clothing that wouldn't cover garments.  I feel bad for the girls who aren't taught this way from early childhood.

Edited June 7, 2016 by zil
'

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, zil said:

When we were growing up, the clothing we chose (once we were old enough to get a say) had to be clothing which could cover garments.  I cannot remember a time when I didn't know this, which means my parents started us very young.  I didn't know anything about garments, except that you wore them after going through the temple, and where they covered.  Apparently not all parents do this, because it's not unusual for me to see even girls in primary and YW (and sometimes little boys) wearing clothing that wouldn't cover garments.  I feel bad for the girls who aren't taught this way from early childhood.

This.

My kids wear their A-shirts and boxer shorts.  It doesn't have the sleeves of the garments and shorter on the legs but I've told them they need to wear it as preparatory clothing for garments.

[estradling75]

I understand why people might ask the question but I agree with Eowyn...

 

The purpose of the garment is to serve as a day reminder of our temple covenants... Therefore having the wearing of the garments to be part of the covenant would be self-referential (aka I am wearing my garments to remind me to wear my garments)

That being said they are very clearly part of the temple endowment and very clear instructions are given to us about them.  To the point that debating over their covenant status seems to miss the point entirely.

 

 

 

[LeSellers]

11 hours ago, Hcastle83 said:

we have to be keeping the Word of Wisdom to enter the temple, but we don't specifically covenant to keep it in the endowment session. I know we have to wear our garments to remain temple worthy, but is not wearing them breaking a covenant- or just making ourselves unworthy? 

It's a question in the Recommend interview, as you intimated.

The Endowment includes more (much more) than what happens in the Ordinance Room, it includes the Initiatory ordinances and the sealing ordinance, as well. I encouraged our sons and daughters (to the point of taking them to make certain it happened) to act as proxy for several people for the Initiatory ordinances as soon after their Endowment as possible so they wouldn't forget, and learn their importance. In a couple of cases, it was the same day.

When we receive the Garment of the Holy Priesthood, the whole ceremony is a covenant.

As Carborendum points out, a covenant is an agreement. But it is more: it is an agreement we make with a more powerful entity who sets the terms, and we agree to them, or we reject them entirely. We have no say in what those terms are.

Finally, as I've said more times than I can count, but which seems rarely to form part of the discussion, the Garment of the Holy Priesthood is part of the Temple, the only part we have with us day to day. It has the Marks of the Holy Priesthood. It is, in effect, our covenant.

Lehi

Edited June 7, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, zil said:

When we were growing up, the clothing we chose (once we were old enough to get a say) had to be clothing which could cover garments.  I cannot remember a time when I didn't know this, which means my parents started us very young.  I didn't know anything about garments, except that you wore them after going through the temple, and where they covered.  Apparently not all parents do this, because it's not unusual for me to see even girls in primary and YW (and sometimes little boys) wearing clothing that wouldn't cover garments.  I feel bad for the girls who aren't taught this way from early childhood.

Just_A_Girl had a couple of BYU roommates who were raised just the opposite--that since they'd have to wear garments after marriage, they should focus on wearing "cute" clothes now, and that there was nothing wrong with that because really who can find modest clothes for teenaged girls anyways?  My sister was an RA at the BYU dorms, and says she heard similar sentiments from her residents on numerous occasions.

Things like that just leave me shaking my head . . .

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Things like that just leave me shaking my head . . .

Amen!

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Shaking my head too. 

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just_A_Girl had a couple of BYU roommates who were raised just the opposite--that since they'd have to wear garments after marriage, they should focus on wearing "cute" clothes now, and that there was nothing wrong with that because really who can find modest clothes for teenaged girls anyways?  My sister was an RA at the BYU dorms, and says she heard similar sentiments from her residents on numerous occasions.

Things like that just leave me shaking my head . . .

To take a blind stab in the dark I would wager that many of those Young Ladies then are now majority of the women now struggling to wear the garments

[Just_A_Guy]

The other thing I'd weigh in on, more related to the OP:  I think the question is an interesting one from a technical/semantic standpoint; but ultimately I doubt God is particularly interested in that sort of legalism.  Fundamentally the way we regard the garment reflects on the way we regard the temple itself; and I think that's the material point.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 I think that's the material point.

No pun intended? 

[mordorbund]

From the Church Handbook of Instruction 2:21.1.42:

Quote

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment. The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. When properly worn, it provides protection against temptation and evil. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior. Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, 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. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn. The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect at all times. Garments should be kept off the floor. They should also be kept clean and mended. After garments are washed, they should not be hung in public areas to dry. Nor should they be displayed or exposed to the view of people who do not understand their significance. Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment. To dispose of worn-out temple garments, members should cut out and destroy the marks. Members then cut up the remaining fabric so it cannot be identified as a garment. Once the marks are removed, the fabric is not considered sacred. ... Members may give garments and temple clothing that are in good condition to other worthy endowed members. The bishop can identify those who might need such clothing. Under no circumstances should members give garments or temple ceremonial clothing to Deseret Industries, bishops’ storehouses, or charities

 

[Hcastle83]

Thanks for responses. To be clear- I am not trying to avoid wearing them, I am trying to understand wording and covenants that are new and strange to me.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Hcastle83
changed mind- too harsh

[pam]

In defense of the OP, he/she never did say anything that would infer to me they were trying to get out of wearing their garments.  Just a simple question.  And a valid one as well.  There are many things that newly endowed people don't know or understand and I think just giving straight answers is what we need to do instead of insinuating or assuming anything other than that.

[Hcastle83]

6 hours ago, mordorbund said:

From the Church Handbook of Instruction 2:21.1.42:

 

Thank you! This is perfect to answer my question

[Hcastle83]

7 minutes ago, pam said:

In defense of the OP, he/she never did say anything that would infer to me they were trying to get out of wearing their garments.  Just a simple question.  And a valid one as well.  There are many things that newly endowed people don't know or understand and I think just giving straight answers is what we need to do instead of insinuating or assuming anything other than that.

Thanks

[LeSellers]

On 6/7/2016 at 9:21 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

they should focus on wearing "cute" clothes now

What I've never understood (even with two sisters, two daughters, and 15 granddaughters) is what makes something "cute".

Most of the time, it seems to mean designed to make men and boys want to ravish the wearer, and to make other women and girls jealous, but, well, not always.

And, yes, I understand that, as a man, I can't understand.

Lehi

[Iggy]

 

Quote

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/04/covenants-two-way-promises-with-god?lang=eng

What exactly is a covenant? “A covenant,” Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explains, “is a binding spiritual contract, a solemn promise to God our Father that we will live and think and act in a certain way—the way of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. In return, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost promise us the full splendor of eternal life.”¹ The better we understand the two-way promises of covenants between us and God, the better we will be able to honor the covenants we have made.

 

From this entire article I deduce that the covenant I made in the Temple when receiving my initiatory and endowment is more than just a mere agreement, it is solemn promises I made to God and in return when I keep my solemn promises to Him, God our Father keeps His solemn promises to me.

The wearing of the garments, as mordorbund  linked and quoted: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.1.42?lang=eng#211   is my fulfilling the solemn promises I made.

I was raised to cover my body with modest clothes. According to my Lutheran raised father "clothes should be long enough to cover the subject, yet short enough to be interesting." This he said to ALL of his children, sons as well as daughters.

If my father were living today and saw the way male teens were wearing their pants, he would sew a donkey's tail on their exposed boxers, right where their tail-bone is. [Me, I would staple one there with a staple gun!] He had our mother sew 3" wide lace, dyed pink onto the hem of my older brothers undershirts. This worked wonderfully at keeping those undershirts tucked into the waist of pants/slacks/jeans. When he started wearing them sans an outer shirt, then the entire undershirt was dyed pink. He had plenty of T-shirts that he could wear. In our household undershirts were an entirely different garment than T-Shirts.

Us girls - five of us - could wear sleeveless blouses, but never tank tops, or spaghetti straps. Our bra straps had to be covered. Our hems had to reach the top of our kneecaps at the shortest. During the summer we were allowed to wear cut-offs, but they had to be half way between the bottom of our buttocks and the middle of our knee cap. - with a finished hem. Also our slips were hemmed with lace and they were about 2" shorter than our skirt/dress hems.

Even though we were NOT LDS, my parents "old world" morals were taught to us regarding clothing, make-up [lack of it except clear lip gloss] and hair styles. Our brothers were taught to dress modestly, and to be chaste, morally respectful towards females of all ages, and respectful towards others whether they thought they deserved it or not.

'er, um, steps off the soap box 

 

 

[Blackmarch]

On June 7, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Hcastle83 said:

I just recently went through the temple a couple months ago and haven't had the chance to be back yet. I am trying to remember if we covenant in the endowment session to wear our garments day and night, or if we just agree to. For instance, we have to be keeping the Word of Wisdom to enter the temple, but we don't specifically covenant to keep it in the endowment session. I know we have to wear our garments to remain temple worthy, but is not wearing them breaking a covenant- or just making ourselves unworthy? 

Part of honor is keeping your agreements. When you say you will do something you become bound to it, for this is just and honest, and we are learning to become perfect in these aspects even as god is.

When god agrees to do something for us based on an agreement we gave him, this is a covenant.

[One Step]

First off, we should all understand that everyone has different opinions on how the Garment affects their life. For some, it's no big deal but for others, it's quite unpleasant. That's why it often comes up so often in these forums. Unfortunately, the Church rarely addresses these concerns directly so it's mainly up to the members/community to reconcile these kinds of questions.

But pertaining to the original question, sometimes I find the language of the TR question to be a bit strange "Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?" Maybe it's semantics but that question makes it sound like we're told to wear them night and day during the endowment but we're not. We're just told to wear them throughout our lives. And sure we make lots of covenants at the temple, but in the TR question, "covenant" is singular which implies that we made a specific one regarding the Garment in the temple so I can see why people struggle to remember what or when that one is/was.

And then on top of that, it feels like we get most of our instruction outside of the temple. We get told how to dispose of them, specific counsel regarding yard work, the 4 S's, etc. So yes, sometimes the whole reasoning behind the Garment and its host of rules can be an obstacle. And for some it's a difficult obstacle because it's a daily/hourly/by-the-minute commitment. For me, I take it to be a challenge to test my willingness to be obedient. I do hope that someday the challenge will be over, whether the Church changes its policy or my mind is eased with understanding.

[CmdrQuandry]

We are told quite clearly, at the point in the ordinances where we are (symbolically) clothed in the Garment that it (the Garment) is to be worn throughout our lives.

What possible reason we would then have for taking it off, other than for pro-functionary things like washing ourselves and the Garment. When we marry many put on a wedding ring. Generally we only take it off to wash, my wife's never comes off. Generally anyone taking of their wedding ring is doing for a nefarious purpose, or is at least seen to be doing for such a reason.

As read at TR interviews, "wearing the Garment is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Saviour, Jesus Christ" (from memory).

Edited June 28, 2016 by CmdrQuandry

[TeresaA]

One of the covenants we make is to obey. Yes, wearing the regulation garment as prescribed is part of being obedient.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 6/8/2016 at 0:52 PM, LeSellers said:

What I've never understood (even with two sisters, two daughters, and 15 granddaughters) is what makes something "cute".

Most of the time, it seems to mean designed to make men and boys want to ravish the wearer, and to make other women and girls jealous, but, well, not always.

And, yes, I understand that, as a man, I can't understand.

Lehi

You say you never understood...but your second sentence shows that you understand quite well afterall.