I was surfing around looking for something else and came across this picture labelled "Mormon Helping Hands".

It so obviously isn't! and I am sure it will disappear from the interwebz as soon as the mistake is discovered. Maybe some disgruntled exmo historian has found pictures of early temple clothing and garments and is doing their bit to have a crack at the church.

The first picture shows a Maori woman dressed in her temple clothes and the second has her holding up a pair of long temple garments. The photo seems to date to about the seventies I would guess; she is standing in a "Lockwood" home, a prefabricated home in which the exposed wooden panelling was popular in the seventies. The painting on the wall behind her is classic Mormon deco.

So thumbs up to the anonymous historian who released this classic image to the world. (and get a copy before it gets pulled)

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/31117/mormon-helping-hands

Holy crap! How did they let that slip through? Nobody who hasn't seen it already will know what it is...

Good god, I've never right click and saved as fast as that!!!!!!

But he looked to be about 6'2", and 220 lbs. of perfectly sculpted black muscle, showing the world what the Good Lord gave him, and staring into the camera lens straight at me.

:)

Thus confirming my suspicion that no "Mormon Helping Hands" ever come without conversion attempts as part of the quid pro quo ...

"Volunteers are seen here wearing bright yellow 'Helping Hands' vests to identify themselves as part of this project."

Doesn't look like yellow helping hands vests to me - HAR HAR

When the church chose to make death threats in their temple ceremonies, they became prime targets for a good public mocking. We don't want to mock the people but it's open season on their false religion.

Of course, the picture of the garment is the full length that is not used in daily use anymore and I doubt it is used in the temple anymore either.
Somebody put the wrong pictures on the web page.
Probably someone who wants to mock Mormons.
Not cool, in my view.
A little more respect is needed. We wouldn't want to see sacred items from other religions that are private.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A little more respect is needed. We wouldn't want
> to see sacred items from other religions that are
> private.


Okay. To be perfectly fair, I do not know about every religion that ever was or ever has been. But, of those I *do* know about, not a single one has sooper-sekret underpants. And it's not as though there are no other photos of said sooper-sekret underpants on the internet.

And I'm an anthropology major, just so you know; I've seen a lot of stuff.

Edited to add: My mother was 'called' to help an elderly woman/sister who needed assistance with bathing and such (my mother is not a nurse). This lady used the full-length one-piece garments, and only took one leg off at a time in the bath -- which is why she needed assistance; she created a fall risk as she stood partway in the tub, washed one leg, turned aorund to put it in new garments that could not touch the floor, took the other leg out of the old garments and washed it in turn. I know it's an anecdote, but I can say from my mother's report that there are still some folks who are old-school enough to wear these union suits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2013 06:27PM by fiona64.

Those long temple garments. When we were cleaning out my aunt's house after she passed herself away, I found a pair. Had the tie strings on and all. They were in perfect condition too. I know that I kept them, but where they are I have no clue. Some box in the attic I guess.

Those are very, very rare.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A little more respect is needed.

This(RfM) is a site all about posting public this kind of stuff about Mormonism. Less respect is needed. That web page didn't come close to disrespecting anything - let alone that cult ritual with the apron and LOL long underwear.

I don't know why the admins tolerate some of the defending or Mormonism you post here. Are you going to "shame on you" someone who posts portions of "the temple endowment"? Huh?

Seriously, Jonathan Swift mocked Christian pomposity with the figurative example of clothing. It is an apt metaphor here as well. And we both know Mormonism is worthy of mockery, don't we?

To add to that:

Unless my memory is failing me, I thought SusieQ had posted on RfM about having a sign by her front door that has her temple name and possibly references phrases in the endowment. I'm less certain about the latter.

If I'm remembering correctly, SusieQ, would you mind explaining the distinction you make between showing "secret" clothing on a website vs. you announcing your "secret" name? Are they not both mocking LDS doctrine?

To be clear, I don't have a problem with you posting your sign. My questions is about how you decide what is acceptable disrespect?

If I misremembered and there is no sign, etc., my apologies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2013 12:16AM by Surrender Dorothy.

Yes. I had a small sign (with a few words of dialog from the temple) typed on a 3X5 piece of paper attached to the inside of the window in my front door for a few days. It was specifically geared to stop a set of missionaries that were calling and bothering my husband (who was not well and asked me to "take care of it). (I shared it here many years later.)

That's the difference.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's the difference.

That's hypocrisy. Whatif a Mormon door-to-door salesperson saw it? What about these "poor" missionaries? The only difference is the level of "public" and that is really not much of an argument.

YOU respect Mormon beliefs since you attempted to shame others mocking their temple attire here.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SusieQ#1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's the difference.
>
> That's hypocrisy. Whatif a Mormon door-to-door
> salesperson saw it? What about these "poor"
> missionaries? The only difference is the level of
> "public" and that is really not much of an
> argument.
>
> YOU respect Mormon beliefs since you attempted to
> shame others mocking their temple attire here.
>
> Hypocrisy at its finest.

Sorry, you missed the point of the whole thing. But you can flame me if you want. LOL

Well, SusieQ, I'm very sorry they bothered your husband when he was sick. No one should have boundaries disrespected, and some Mormons have no respect for boundaries. I understand your wanting to protect your husband from being bothered in his own home.

But imagine for a minute that the boundarylessness back then was happening on a daily basis or weekly basis and coming from people close to him, maybe even from other people in his own home. Imagine that it's not just the irritation of intrusion but outright verbal attacks on his character and he no longer has a safe haven. How long would you have left the sign up then? To what lengths would you have gone to protect him?

Many people here do not have a safe haven in their own homes. They have nowhere to go, so they come here and mock with like-minded people and in a more innocuous way than you did. You actually told the missionaries something that no one but you and your husband were supposed to know--your new name--yet you would shame them for doing something less "disrespectful" than what you did. Where's your empathy?

These pictures don't go to the extreme that you did. People have seen those clothes, but no one but you and your husband (and some temple workers) knew your new name until that sign.

For you to make the excuse that you were protecting your husband by revealing sacred information and claim that's not disrespect yet try to shame people who are trying to protect themselves and, possibly, their families by laughing at someone else's "disrespect" of the now-well-known temple clothes is the height of hypocrisy.

I did not remember that your motivation to use the sign was because your husband was sick at the time. You have posted the story multiple times on threads about getting the missionaries to stop harassing people, so I decided to do a search and re-read your previous telling of the story.

----------------
From a post by you on October 13, 2012
"emma: Re: A possible cure for unwanted contact ..... I have a 100% guaranteed cure - My Door Sign! :-)"
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,670388,672325#msg-672325

"Hubby was a bit annoyed with the pestering missionaries and told me to 'take care of it' when they called. So I did. One in particular would call when he was busy and demand to speak to him because they claimed they wanted a ride to and from an appointment and wouldn't accept my answer, that my husband was busy and couldn't help them anyhow.

Besides, they had bikes, it was nice weather, they could ride there in just a few minutes and I told them that. Even gave them directions. But, they had a lot of excuses about how that wouldn't work. For some reason, they had the idea that they could call my husband anytime they wanted a ride and he would stop what he was doing (or leave work) and help them. That was not going to happen.

My hubby saw the sign, thought it was a little bit extreme, but like I also said, I only used it once - just a few days-- until those missionaries came back again, which I knew they would. Then I took it down because it fulfilled it's purpose and I had a good laugh! :-) "
---------------
In this telling, you state your husband was busy, not sick, but I understand it would be impossible for people to tell every detail in every post. However, the last line is that you "had a good laugh! :-)" You thought revealing your new name was funny. THAT. IS. MOCKING.

With a heavy-duty dose of mocking under your own belt, your scolding and shaming people here for mocking a corporation that caused and continues to cause them pain is off-the-charts hypocrisy!

You have your story. Your experience with TSCC was not as painful for you as it was and is for others here, and that's awesome for you. Others here are not so lucky. Empathy is a fantastic thing. It helps others heal and, at the same time, expands our own understanding. Maybe a bit more empathy and a bit less tsk, tsk-ing for those whose experiences are different from our own is worth considering.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2013 02:08PM by Surrender Dorothy.

+infinity

Do try to keep your stories, straight, susie, you're beginning to lok too much like Smith. Its a muracul!

There has to be some sort of story behind how this quite old and supremely embarrassing picture got substituted for a modern PR shot. This could be good for a bout of sending faith promoting links about Mormon Helping Hands in the Pacific.

Maybe someone hacked The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand?

ETA: This is the first photo I have seen of the old long sleeve temple garment, with the little ties. I have heard it described before, ad line drawings, but not photographed. I understand it was phased out for daily use in the early 1900s, but remained fo temple use into the 70s. This would seem to support that.

Given that death oaths still existed at the time these photos were taken, the lady in the photo was very courageous!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2013 06:31PM by spanner.

someone post this to facebook!!!!!

I had not noticed the comment section down there. Things could get interesting.

I'm only semi-literate with a computer; can someone save this and repost it elsewhere--or maybe everywhere?

I just saved a (permanent) PDF copy of the page.

I'm not on facebook, or i'd be posting that.

Now, all we need is the male version of that - you know, baker's hat and all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2013 12:13PM by jl.

I wanted to se her wearing the garment.

That would have been sexy!

Not!

I do not know of any other religion that has sacred underwear or vestments for any kind of service that cannot be shown or photographed, no matter how strange it may look to non-members. Very orthodox Jewish men wear tzitsit, a kind of garment with knotted fringes hanging out, but this is not secret. You can see it and shop for it on Google if you wish!

I do not see any disrespect in publishing these pictures of the woman in Temple clothes and the old long john garments with nobody in them. "Sacred not secret" is just bullshit and deserves no respect.

I agree, 100%. Sacred, not secret= bullshite. And perpetuating the "respect" continues to help churchco continue on as the corporate, money & soul sucking cult it is.
I'm glad that not everyone has had the same experience in the church as I did. However:
Secrets, (oops I meant "sacred things"), harm people. Keeps them from seeing the reality of exactly what ldsinc is...

I say, let the full light of day shine upon this #$@&!. And let people decide for themselves. Withholding information and knowledge is just another way of burying the truth...

That is all.

Especially since the spiritual clothing is yet another item stolen from the Masons - the masonic apron and it's spiritual connotations. Not sacred, stolen.

http://arkphagrandlodge.com/apron.htm

Ooooh, special power undiewear...how clever that they only appear ordinary...that's the ingenious part! How could I ever doubt something so spiritually sublime?