Garments are supposed to be entirely symbolic. The church doesn't mandate that every member wear a CTR ring or that every young woman wear the torch pendant necklace. Why can't garments be one of those symbols that is, well, symbolic? Their purpose is only to remind the individual of the covenants they made, not to show the world, so the whole "other religions have religious clothing" argument doesn't apply, right?

Garments really are not just a reminder of covenants made in the temple. This is a reason that the church likes to give to the public,along with that old diatribe about how they are a religious clothing just like what pastors and ministers of other faiths wear...

The real reason is that it is a protection. Not really the kind that offers physical protection(although if thinking it provides physical protection keeps people wearing them...) but "spiritual" protection. Once you have recieved your endowment you now have "special" knowledge that can enable you to return to our "Father in Heaven". This makes you an enticing target to Satan. Satan will now throw all that he has against you to keep you from returning to our Father. The Garment is a holy protection against temptation......

So no. It is not at all symbolic.

I always found that when I wore the garments I was much more tempted. Satan obviously used them to tempt me. But, not wearing them, I feel not only free, but much more pure and closer to Christ.

In short, they are not instruments to bring us closer to God, but to enslave us.

I was never able to wear them. After one year I had had enough and returned to boxers. I have always been more comfortable in normal underwear....

If you can control ones underwear then you certainly can control everything else...

rhgc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always found that when I wore the garments I was
> much more tempted. Satan obviously used them to
> tempt me. But, not wearing them, I feel not only
> free, but much more pure and closer to Christ.
>
> In short, they are not instruments to bring us
> closer to God, but to enslave us.

I couldn't agree more.

"I always found that when I wore the garments I was much more tempted."

Agreed. They also made me irritable all the time. Annoying little buggers they are. Made me want to swear all the time, as in: "I hate these d*** things. Who the h*** invented these stupid things? These F****** things won't stop crawling up my legs." Etc.

So garments actually cause people to sin.

It pisses me off when MORmONS start up with that "figurative and symbolic" line of crap cop out. A symbol is meaningful when it properly represents something beyond its actual self. THe word "cat" is meaningful not because its 3 letters, but because it represents something more than the mere scrawl of letters that it is comprised of, or else any jumble of three letters would be just as meaningful as in not very meaningful at all.

MORmONS were told for decades that Temple Garments offered real both spiritual and physical protection, but that could never really be demonstrated. So with more public scrutiny of MORmON secrets, now MORmONS want to fall back on
"figurative and symbolic" in the most meaningless sense of the words. MORmONS are stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75malIL-R6k

here's some MORmON style figurative and symbolic for you !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozL4O2pMXHs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CiyrZd-kB0

Agreed, they are symbolic of the person's enslavement to TSCC.

The only symbolism I can find on them are the square and compass. it'll remind me what tools I need when making a stone building if i ever become a mason

Or they come in handy when your evading the inquisition priests and are seeking protection from a brother mason.

The temple ceremony is figurative, "as far as the man and the woman are concerned."

So...they are literal as far as God, Michael, Peter, Paul, Satan and the minister/priest are concerned?

The "only symbolic" argument also applies to the cross, right?

So why do Mormons object to the use of a cross or crucifix if it is only symbolic of the atonement, just a reminder of what Jesus did for us.

The garment argument is part of the mainstreaming of Mormonism for mass consumption. Garments are only symbolic. The Book of Mormon is inspirational fiction. The prophet is like the pope, just the spiritual leader. All other religions are aok. We are one in Jesus....

In the life of the corporation, the niche must be fully occupied. Mormons were forced to choose between being peculiar and being more widely accepted. They choose the latter every time.

There is no question their peculiarities will be homogenized out of existence and our grandchildren will be wondering what the big whoop was when grandma changed from Mormon to Methodist.

Anagrammy

Garments could be purchased through the mail (Internet now as well) or in person through Distribution Centers. Our nearest Distribution Centers were in a foreign country (the USA).

How should members declare garments purchased when crossing the border? What if Customs Officers wanted to open packaging to examine the garments?

Some members began declaring garments as "religious vestments" to satisfy Customs that they didn't need to examine the contents. Since I stopped traveling internationally to attend the temple in 1990, I can't say if "religious vestments" would be searched in our post-911 hyper-security environment.

Declaring garments as "religious vestments" had the side benefit of making our underwear duty free. It was announced in Church that members should not to declare garments as "religious vestments" and pay duty as required (unless staying out of Canada long enough to qualify for sufficient import exemptions).

Therefore, whatever garments are they are not "religious vestments."

Brigham Young was adament that the endowment was very literal, hence the whole yeah, there really are sentinals standing guard and you'll need those handshakes to get past them attitude, but since then the church has said that it's just symbolic, yes?

Since the purpose of the garment right now is not to show convictions to anyone else (like the whole "well, priests wear collars!" crap), but just to themselves, there's really not a need for them to be worn. It seems so contradictory to me.

Also tangibly related, when did Mormon culture make not wearing garments a much more serious transgression than everything else? Mormon culture violates the word of wisdom like crazy and explains that away, but there's no justifying not wearing garments. Why does the church care so much about those particular symbols?