L
Lepanto
Guest
I’m dead serious.
- Status
L
Lehl
Guest
F
french
Guest
A heretical cultlike belief that believes you have to wear some type of special garment in temple.
There is no justification for the belief. i’m sure it was just something joseph smith likes, so he decided that he would add it to his religion. Just as mohammad who hated dogs, and now in hadiths it is a sin to have dogs. These people just have their own personal views and try and inherit it into a religion, not explaining why, or what advantage it might have.
There is no justification for the belief. i’m sure it was just something joseph smith likes, so he decided that he would add it to his religion. Just as mohammad who hated dogs, and now in hadiths it is a sin to have dogs. These people just have their own personal views and try and inherit it into a religion, not explaining why, or what advantage it might have.
R
rossum
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
And the vestments our priests wear? Is it not against our canon law (I’d imagine there are some exceptions) for a priest to say Mass unvested?
L
Lehl
Guest
No, they are NO comparison to priestly vestments whatsoever. Temple-worthy Mormon members (male and female) are to wear garments ALL THE TIME, not just during temple rituals.
They believe that they have some “magical” powers, which is why sometimes you’ll see garments referred to as “magical underwear” by non-Mormons.
My in-laws were in a rather significant car accident a few years ago. They ended up in the hospital for several days. Of course they attributed their survival to their garments.
I had to argue, yeah–but you still got severely injured, so they didn’t really protect you much, did they? They think if they hadn’t been wearing them at all, they both would have been dead for sure.
Whatever.:banghead:
They believe that they have some “magical” powers, which is why sometimes you’ll see garments referred to as “magical underwear” by non-Mormons.
My in-laws were in a rather significant car accident a few years ago. They ended up in the hospital for several days. Of course they attributed their survival to their garments.
I had to argue, yeah–but you still got severely injured, so they didn’t really protect you much, did they? They think if they hadn’t been wearing them at all, they both would have been dead for sure.Whatever.:banghead:
M
majick275
Guest
mormons begin wearing them when they first go to their temple. they symbolize the coats of skin that God made Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness. They serve as a constant reminder of the covenants that they make in the temple. they are more akin to scapulars and the like than vestments. The temple clothing that is only worn during the actual temple ceremony itself would be more like priestly vestments. Mormons wear garments mostly out of obedience, and primarily see them as symbolic reminders of the Temple. (there are symbols embroidered on them that match up with the symbols on the Temple veil) they are taught though that can provide protection from harm. Most believe it’s from spiritual harm but the “testimonies” of the physical “miracles” aren’t rare at all. They are originally a Joseph Smith invention loosely based on his experience with freemasonry. (the symbols on them are all masonic)
I
isaac.madsen
Guest
The thing I don’t understand is how they’re related to scripture at all. Hardly a thing in the temple seemed scripture-related. Well, I suppose that’s not really true, but it’s all a huge stretch of the meanings of old testament scripture mixed with Joseph’s “unearthings” and the other cults he belonged to. I was in a meeting with my bishop today, and one of the questions he asked was whether or not I wear my garments. I probably ought to have said it aloud, but my thoughts at the time were, What kind of question is that? You’re asking me what kind of underwear I put on this morning for crying out loud. Personally, I don’t believe in magic underwear. The only fashion in which it protects you is the fact that it reminds you of the promises you made in the temple, many of which I did not agree with. I won’t promise to die for any religion. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be willing to do it at some point, but the simple fact is that religion is led by humans and we’re all imperfect and capable of flaws. Why should I promise to die for something that might betray me? Especially if it has a history of past betrayals.
K
KarenNC
Guest
I see it as basically similar to a yarmulke/kippah and tzitzit worn by Orthodox Jews. It is a symbol and physical reminder and symbol of one’s faith.
P
pyropam
Guest
This is about the weirdest thing I have ever read. I had no idea that these people were wearing special underwear. Strange. Where do so many of these things come from?
K
KarenNC
Guest
I’m not sure why it is strange that people might wear something that is a tangible sign and reminder of their faith, whether it be a piece of clothing or jewelry or what have you. It is common to many religions.
Do you consider that Orthodox Jews are strange for wearing the kippah and the tallit katan? hebrew4christians.com/Blessings/Daily_Blessings/Tallit_Katan/tallit_katan.html
That priests are strange for wearing shirts with the Roman collar?
Some Catholics wear a brown cloth scapular constantly domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19980701/SCRMNTL/SCAPUL.HTM
That the Amish are strange for wearing plain outer clothes?
web3.unt.edu/news/story.cfm?story=7771
That some women of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions wear headcoverings?
It is part of the way the human race seems wired, to value some physical reminder of their vows and beliefs. It’s just the form that differs.
As for the “magical” part, a term which is ascribed by outsiders to the belief in their protective ability from what I can tell, I find it ironic at best that someone from a Christian denomination that places such an emphasis on medals, relics, etc of saints is criticizing another religion for ascribing protective qualities to physical objects.
D
DJgang
Guest
I heard for women, it’s also a reminder to be modest in clothing choices.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Have you looked at the pictures? Kind of hard not to be modestly dressed (by current US standards)—even if you chose to have something lowcut or skyhigh, the underwear would still be covering you
L
Lehl
Guest
The point is that the garments should never been seen or revealed by the outside clothing. Therefore sleeveless tops, lowcut necklines, and most shorts are out.Have you looked at the pictures? Kind of hard not to be modestly dressed (by current US standards)—even if you chose to have something lowcut or skyhigh, the underwear would still be covering you
L
Lehl
Guest
As Catholics, we aren’t “felt up” or scrutizined through our mandatory white shirts (men) and later criticized at Mass by other self-righteous Catholics for NOT wearing or displaying medals, crucifixes, etc. at ALL TIMES.
We also aren’t quizzed by our pastors about our lack of wearing medals or crucifixes and rosaries and denied access to places of worship because of it.
It is all about control.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
whats the big deal? catholics have practices that makes a lot less sense. like the prohibition of contraception. celibacy.
Lesson: dont laugh at another’s beliefs and practices when yours is just as silly to outsiders.
K
KarenNC
Guest
I understand that…hence the smiley face after the statement.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Hi Isaac,
The problem with the blood oaths in the temple is that you are promising to die, not for the testimony of Jesus like the martyrs have done throughout the ages, but for revealing the secret handshakes and passwords!
That’s ridiculous.
God love you,
Paul
B
BartBurk
Guest
Of course in 1990 the LDS Church changed the temple ceremony so that newbies don’t have to make these oaths any longer.
L
lizaanne
Guest
- Status