New garment styles

[GaleG]

17 hours ago, Mores said:

You also don't appear to have heard of the concept of "tokens" in holy observances.  That is that the observance does not tend to perfectly imitate the original.  It is an "image" or "symbol" of the original.  This concept of "token" is not without precedent.  Many observations throughout scripture and throughout cultural history throughout the world indicate that there was a literal beginning.  But we now remember that literal beginning by using something only resembling it.  And sometimes, it doesn't even resemble, but acts as a "pointer" to the original.

Thank you Mores.  Have to shout out  "Norm!"  like in the former Cheers series 🙂

Gale

[Guest Mores]

6 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Thank you Mores.  Have to shout out  "Norm!"  like in the former Cheers series 🙂

Gale

Gale, I once new a woman who tends to talk and think a lot like you are.  I'm wondering if you're Japanese?

Edited May 20, 2019 by Mores

[GaleG]

Just now, Mores said:

Gale, I once new a woman who tends to talk and think a lot like you are.  I'm wondering if you're Japanese?

oh no  🙂   but I like the Japanese culture.

Gale

[Guest Mores]

Just now, GaleG said:

oh no  🙂   but I like the Japanese culture.

Gale

BTW, the character Norm had an analogue named "Morn" (anagram) on Star Trek: DS9.  I wanted a name similar to his character, but not the same name.

So, being on religious/political sites, I eventually came up with "Mores".

[Grunt]

On 5/14/2019 at 6:14 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

So . . . I often wear button-down shirts with the collar button left open.   I also wear crew-necked garment tops.  I’ve never really worried about a bit of garment showing; figuring it’s indistinguishable from a regular T-shirt.  Have I been in apostasy all these years?

I do the same.  The military garments are made to show as you described so I just assumed the same applied across the board.  

[Grunt]

I’ve had problems with all these having markings wash out.  

[GaleG]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

The America flag can be made out of various fabrics and sizes.

I know where I stand.  I don’t know your position. 

I agree with your view on the fabrics and sizes, but I would not accept an American
flag if it was in the form of a circle or triangle, or if it had white-headed bald eagles
instead of stars, or if the colors were a different 3-color combination.

In the context of priesthood clothing, the Israelites in the Old Testament were clearly
instructed on their robe fabric and designs. So far, I haven't seen any parallel in the
Book of Mormon yet.  But then again, I have more to read.

Thank you,

Gale

[Guest Mores]

20 minutes ago, GaleG said:

I agree with your view on the fabrics and sizes, but I would not accept an American
flag if it was in the form of a circle or triangle, or if it had white-headed bald eagles
instead of stars, or if the colors were a different 3-color combination.

To repeat, you're talking about what is critical to the symbolism vs what is incidental to the symbolism.  And I agree with that overall concept.  That was exactly what I was stating earlier.

I disagree that you have a good handle on exactly what constitutes critical vs. incidental.

In American culture, there really are only three items that make us think of America on the flag (without any other contextual clues that distract from it).

• Red, white, and blue.
• Has a star, and at least two stripes of red and white.
• Is a flag.

I've seen flags in a circle or a triangle or various other shapes.  But when in the context of Independence Day celebration, we all recognize what it is to remind us of, whether it is a complete modern flag or not.

And I'll go one step further.  I did actually see a flag with a single bald eagle head in the blue field.  And no one who looked at it saw anything other than an homage to the actual flag.

[NeuroTypical]

54 minutes ago, GaleG said:

In the context of priesthood clothing, the Israelites in the Old Testament were clearly instructed on their robe fabric and designs.

Indeed.  Here's some touching related stuff:  Genesis, Samuel, and Job all contain accounts of rending clothing as an expression of grief upon hearing of the death of a loved one.  Over time, the practice evolved into having special 'rendable' clothing, for the sole purpose of wearing so you can rend it at the appropriate time (at a funeral, etc).  In modern days, some Jews will use a Kriah ribbon, meant for rending:

The principle has remained the same across time, the clothing style, fabrics, etc, change as time moves on. 

Is there a difference between this:

 

and this?  

 

 

Perhaps not as big a difference as one might think.

 

Looking this stuff up was more touching than I thought, and more analogous to our garment wearing than I had originally remembered.  If you're interested, here's a random link I found.  Take a look, maybe watch the video. 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I’ve had problems with all these having markings wash out.  

Really?  That’s interesting.  I haven’t bought new garments in a while, but my understanding was that the Church was transitioning all garments to having the marks silk-screened in.  That’s a problem, if they’re just going to wash out . . .

[Grunt]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Really?  That’s interesting.  I haven’t bought new garments in a while, but my understanding was that the Church was transitioning all garments to having the marks silk-screened in.  That’s a problem, if they’re just going to wash out . . .

My military garments are fading but holding up.  The new stretch style washed/wore off after one or two wearings. 

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  Here's some touching related stuff:  Genesis, Samuel, and Job all contain accounts of rending clothing as an expression of grief upon hearing of the death of a loved one.  Over time, the practice evolved into having special 'rendable' clothing, for the sole purpose of wearing so you can rend it at the appropriate time (at a funeral, etc).  In modern days, some Jews will use a Kriah ribbon, meant for rending:

The principle has remained the same across time, the clothing style, fabrics, etc, change as time moves on. 

Is there a difference between this:

 

and this?  

 

 

Perhaps not as big a difference as one might think.

 

Looking this stuff up was more touching than I thought, and more analogous to our garment wearing than I had originally remembered.  If you're interested, here's a random link I found.  Take a look, maybe watch the video.

I will just note here that rending a garment in ancient times likely meant you just tore one of your only (perhaps your only) garments. Compared to today, clothing was expensive in ancient times, even simple clothing. Rending a garment was a sign of mourning indeed.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

BTW, the character Norm had an analogue named "Morn" (anagram) on Star Trek: DS9.

M'Ron would have been a better Trekkian anagram.

[Guest Mores]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

M'Ron would have been a better Trekkian anagram.

Too reminiscent of a failed tech company.  

[mikbone]

6 hours ago, GaleG said:

I agree with your view on the fabrics and sizes, but I would not accept an American
flag if it was in the form of a circle or triangle, or if it had white-headed bald eagles
instead of stars, or if the colors were a different 3-color combination.

In the context of priesthood clothing, the Israelites in the Old Testament were clearly
instructed on their robe fabric and designs. So far, I haven't seen any parallel in the
Book of Mormon yet.  But then again, I have more to read.

Thank you,

Gale

What about an American flag on a license plate or a digital one on a computer screen?  It is still a Flag?  

WE can go on and on.  Made of glass, wood?  Chiseled into granite?  

I ask you, what makes the American Flag an American Flag?

 

 

    The Flag from the World Trade Center

 

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by mikbone

[GaleG]

8 hours ago, Mores said:

To repeat, you're talking about what is critical to the symbolism vs what is incidental to the symbolism.  And I agree with that overall concept.  That was exactly what I was stating earlier.

I disagree that you have a good handle on exactly what constitutes critical vs. incidental.

Would it be ok if Aaron and his sons changed the designs or symbols in the garments God
prescribed for them in Exodus 28?

I did a search online in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price but didn't see any mention
of sacred inner garments worn by male and female believers for spiritual protection.  Is there
some reference as to when the church introduced this?

Thank you,

Gale

[wenglund]

On 5/14/2019 at 4:23 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

As you likely know, they had that available for women first, and I love them. Best fabric ever!  I was so excited when I realized they were available for men now.  My husband loves them too.  

How does the fabric work in hotter climates? Does it "breath" as well as cotton, or is it more prone to sweat?

[Edit: I just read some of the later posts. They answered my question.]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 21, 2019 by wenglund

[wenglund]

On 5/18/2019 at 9:10 AM, GaleG said:

Are the garments based on man's asking for changes or God designing what's best?

Like most Bible believers, our clothing has evolved beyond the fig leaf--mostly of our own accord, though at times with some input from God.   

Thanks -Wade Englund-

[Guest Mores]

11 hours ago, GaleG said:

Would it be ok if Aaron and his sons changed the designs or symbols in the garments God
prescribed for them in Exodus 28?

I did a search online in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price but didn't see any mention
of sacred inner garments worn by male and female believers for spiritual protection.  Is there
some reference as to when the church introduced this?

Thank you,

Gale

I have read Jane Doe's complimentary post about you.  And I'll reserve judgment based on that alone.  But I've already answered these questions.  And it is somewhat frustrating that you have reacted to those posts and even responded to those posts.  Yet you're repeating the questions I already answered.  I hope you take some time to read this as I repeat what I've written earlier.

1) There were no "underclothes" or "outer clothes" in the day that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden.  They were merely "clothing".  It was clothing to "cover our nakedness." Today, either inner or outer clothing would do the job.  For scriptural reference, "the coats of skins" that was given to Adam and Eve are the prototypical garments that we wear today.  Whether inner or outer is incidental. I've already posted how it is spiritual protection and the scriptural basis for it.  Explicit descriptions of this are not in scripture because it deals with sacred things that we do not talk much about outside the temple.  But there are principles outlined in scriptures that then inform us about what it all means.  And it is through regular temple attendance that the Spirit is to open up our minds and spirits to accept revelatory instruction.  If you really want to know more about what, why, when, etc.  And ESPECIALLY what it all means, there is no amount of research that is going to replace regular temple attendance.  Because in the end, these things are learned through the Spirit.  And the temple is an assigned means of receiving such instruction.

2) We are led by prophets to guide us on the matter of interpretation and constant analysis of what is critical vs. incidental.  This is a matter of judgment and interpretation that is given them as prophets.

3) Aaron and his sons were not prophets.  They were priests who officiated in ordinances.  They did not have the authority to make interpretive calls on what about the ceremony or clothing or any other ritual elements were critical vs. incidental.

However, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc. were all men who WERE PROPHETS.  And if they made an interpretive call to change something, then that would have been their right.

EXAMPLE: Jesus himself talks about how Moses allowed divorces even though the Lord specifically said it was a wrong.  He never said "Thus saith the Lord: You may now get divorced."  It doesn't work that way.  But as a prophet, he was allowed some leeway in interpreting and applying true principles as best as was possible.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Mores

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, GaleG said:

Would it be ok if Aaron and his sons changed the designs or symbols in the garments God
prescribed for them in Exodus 28?

I did a search online in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price but didn't see any mention
of sacred inner garments worn by male and female believers for spiritual protection.  Is there
some reference as to when the church introduced this?

Thank you,

Gale

Gale, what is described in the Books of Moses is the Law of Moses: the Old Covenant guidelines in which the old Israelites lived their lives.

That old law is now fulfilled and we live in New Covenant times, no longer keeping the Law of Moses which was given to the old Israelites, such as the specifics described in their ceremonial wear.  Modern-day garments are harkening back to the ancient practice of clothing being used to symbolize something,  a tradition which pre-dates the Law of Moses by many generations.  

 

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, GaleG said:

Is there some reference as to when the church introduced this?

Garments are discussed in the temple.  And we keep that stuff sacred and don't talk about it outside the temple.  Additionally, many of us aren't exactly scholars at what we're supposed to keep private and what we can talk about, so some of us err on the side of caution, some of us can get a bit heated, etc.  Finally, most of us are acquainted with people antagonistic to our faith, who have no problem with mocking our temple practices, so some of us can start out on the defensive.    

You've been stepping politely through this subject, but we don't really discuss this stuff outside the temple, or at least outside temple-attending groups.  

 

 

[GaleG]

On 5/21/2019 at 9:16 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Finally, most of us are acquainted with people antagonistic to our faith, who have no problem with mocking our temple practices, so some of us can start out on the defensive.    

You've been stepping politely through this subject, but we don't really discuss this stuff outside the temple, or at least outside temple-attending groups. 

I respect this sacred practice of your church so I tread carefully and politely.  I hope
I have not offended anyone.

Thank you,

Gale

[Grunt]

On 5/20/2019 at 12:59 PM, Grunt said:

My military garments are fading but holding up.  The new stretch style washed/wore off after one or two wearings. 

I'll change this statement to hoping they don't go to printed. Even my military garments are faded and in some cases gone.  If I have to buy new garments every 6 months it's not going to be fun.

[Guest Mores]

10 hours ago, Grunt said:

I'll change this statement to hoping they don't go to printed. Even my military garments are faded and in some cases gone.  If I have to buy new garments every 6 months it's not going to be fun.

It is interesting to read this just after I spent some time working with "Great Stuff" the polyurethane foam.  I got some on my clothing and it NEVER washes off or fades or wears off.  I wonder why such a material could not be incorporated into the clothing design such that it will never wear or wash off.

[Andysek]

What about this fact?

“It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet came to my mother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the Angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist in cutting out the garments. They spread unbleached muslin out on the table and he told her how to cut it out. She had to cut the third pair, however, before he said it was satisfactory. She told the prophet that there would be sufficient cloth from the knee to the ankle to make a pair of sleeves, but he told her he wanted as few seams as possible and that there would be sufficient whole cloth to cut the sleeve without piecing. The first garments were made of unbleached muslin and bound with turkey red and were without collars. Later on the prophet decided he would rather have them bound with white. Sister Emma Smith, the Prophet's wife, proposed that they have a collar on as she thought they would look more finished, but at first the prophet did not have the collars on them. After Emma Smith had made the little collars which were not visible from the outside of the dress, Sister Eliza R. Snow made a collar of fine white material which was worn on the outside of the dress. The garment was to reach to the ankle and the sleeves to the wrist. The marks were always the same."”