Before it just becomes another thing swept under the Mormon rug, let's make people aware of what we had to wear when attending the temple up until the time in the SWK era where he said we could just wear normal garments.

It was considered inappropriate to wear anything but the old-world style garments in the temple. They were long-johns, coming all the way to the wrists and ankles, and had a little collar at the neck. Because they replicated underwear from the 1800s, they tied with strings down the body rather than with buttons. They were liked by the ordinance workers who did the washing/anointing, because the officiators were supposed to help you into your garments and then they were supposed to tie you into them. Anyway, the ties were all about 6 inches apart down the front, beginning at the neck, and stopping about the navel. The whole area below was completely open all the way from low on your navel, backward to the lower back.

Not only did the underwear look stupid and offer no support, but a man's genitals were totally visible--hanging southward, they were--and supported only by the inside of the pants you put on. It was creepy and uncomfortable, and when you zipped up the pants you tended to get pubic hair caught in the zipper. As an added bonus, the white pants also tended to allow people to see your pubic hair; often the male member would be hidden behind the fly. You had to do the who 4 hour endowment like that and it was exceedingly uncomfortable. Well, no one's getting erections in the temple, anyway, we all hope.

Spencer W. Kimball made the rather wise choice to allow people to wear regular "street garments" in the temple, and then the two-piece ones came out.

We have to keep this alive before all of us die and everyone forgets about it. Can anyone cough up a pair somehow?

Who else remembers these? Richard? Anagrammy?

I remember them. I got rid of mine many years ago, although I cannot remember my reasons.

I didn't own any, but I certainly remember having to put those things on when I was 18 and getting married.

I felt like I was getting dressed for an 1800's stage play. I couldn't believe how incredibly ugly those things were. I also couldn't believe that was what i'd be wearing under my wedding dress. Weird and ugly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2013 02:00AM by Mia.

Thanks for the flashback...

I remember my junk hang in out..literally

That was at the Manti temple ..so wierd

That was one of the most miserable nights I ever spent, going through the whole washing and annointing, first time endowment, and sealing to now EX.

This reminds me of one of the members sharing this story.

She had been a Jack Mormon and reactivated in the late 60s. She met her husband in the apartment complex she lived in and he joined the church.
He became the stablizing influence in her life and she was able with his help to finally live the "gospel" and marry him in the temple.

At an office party soon after their temple marriage a woman co-worker came up to Charlie "Didn't you just get married in the Temple?" she asked. Then she ran her hand up his back.

"You don't have any lumps on your back!"

"Lumps from what?" Charlie asked

"Lumps from the knots!"

"What knots?"

"The ones your wife ties every morning!"
"What?!"

"My Mother told me Mormon women teach their daughters how to tie their husbands into their garments. The ties go up the back and the wife unties them every night. That way she can keep her husband faithful to her, because he can't untie the knots. They are secret knots and women who don't know them can't untie them and be adulterous with the Mormon wifes husband."

The lady was dead serious. She really believed that about Mormons and their temple garments!

I DIDNT HAVE THEM,BUT MY EX DID. He thought it would be neat to wear them on our wedding day (& wedding nite) .They were the wierdest things I ever saw.But being raised submissive;I said nothing. Notice the referance:EX!

I've got some really bad visuals in my head. Flopping junk, pubes in zippers...I'm going to have to roto rooter my brain.

It is just incredible that people voluntarily subjected themselves to such absurd practices in the name of spiritual salvation. And mormons think that the followers of the flying spaghetti monster look silly with colanders on their heads...at least spaghetti-ists keep their stuff where it is safe. Zipper, pubes, ouch!

I'm with you. *shudder*

I went through shortly after this change.

My grandmother died in 1983. She asked the family to bury her in a pair of these old-style garments. She said that if my grandfather (who had been dead about 30 years) ever saw her in the new kind of garment he would think she was some kind of floozy.

Funny how in a mormon mind, a pair of underwear that can't close at the crotch is god-like, while a simple pair of boxers or a nice pantie makes one a whore.

I went through the temple just after the change was made. I wouldn't have known about temple garments if a friend of mine hadn't preferred wearing them for ordinance work and told me about them.

All you evil young people, forcing the Lord to accept your wicked worldly undies in the temple, when you should be wearing the far more superior style that was in vogue when all the oldsters were young. They had morals back in 1895 dammit, so any style of clothes that were trendy back then, would be what Jesus would want you to wear in his house.

I went through (shivering) in 1973 and the oldies were already gone.

When I was little, my sister and I used to dress up in those transparent curtains which were all the rage. We would drape ourselves first like the Virgin Mary, then like the Grim Reaper, then the curtains would be our wedding dress with long train, then the Wicked Queen from Snow White, etc.

Yep, when I donned the whole tie-it-around-you white curtain, I could hardly stifle the "I'm the Virgin Mary," which I always "called" first.

:)

What I remember most from the old days was the fear I felt that I would not do the imitation throat slashing correctly and the whole session would have to start over or whatever "penalty" there was. I fought the urge to run out during the whole session. I was very upset.

What I want kept alive is the true temple ceremony that was so important that the church had to be restored to bring it back (what a crock)...and then they changed it because it was unpopular!!!!!!!

It is a fact that one of the figures in the Garden of Eden was a Catholic priest who was called a hireling of Satan. Having been converted from Catholicism, I was so shocked I could hardly breathe. Satan's minions? Really?

It is also a fact that the signs and tokens of Satan's priesthood on his apron are EXACTLY the same as the signs and tokens of Adam's priesthood on his apron. I learned this from taking the Higley's class on Mormonism in Salt Lake. She used to be a temple translator and got to sit up front and close.

I hope the original ceremony, complete with explanatory details, is preserved somewhere so that the truth-seekers among the Mormons will get to see what they really bought into when they were baptized and told this religion was just about teaching the message of Jesus.


Anagrammy

http://www.mormonismi.net/temppeli/ihokaskuva2.html

Do they still sell them? Who would want them?

Yeah, but these aren't the ones. These are simple one-piece garments, not the long-john "ordinance garments." Not the same thing at all. The garments featured in this picture were for (believe it or else) every-day wear. And note how the guy does not dangle freely outside the underwear.

When I got sealed the first time, the men's street garments were onesies. I was surprised to have to wear the string-tie ones in the temple. It just seemed weird, as did everything else in there, especially the pay-lay-ale and the throat-cutting and disemboweling pantomimes. I really never bought in fully because it's just plain screwball. JS was obviously off his rocker.

I want to see this!

I couldn't find them anywhere on the Internet. The best I can come up with is the cartoon-like drawing of them on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment

The looked (more or less--mostly more) like the drawing of the long-johns on the right of the page. Be advised, too, that women had to wear these under their wedding dresses. Try to get an image of that in your head so you'll know what we had to deal with.


EDIT: Also note how they were essentially to vertical halves instead of one integrated garment. That's why your junk dangled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2013 11:34AM by cludgie.

Though I only had the "modern" one piece due to my first time in the temple on September 19, 1981, I did purchase a long-john one piece one thinking it would be warm in winter. Neither one was at all comfortable. They were even more uncomfortable than the two piece garmies. Really weird using the toilet. Regrettably, I didn't think to keep the long one-piece one to show. Note that I don't expect to post after today.

Never heard of this! Did they look like this 1880's drawing?

http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/mormon-garments.htm

I'm still trying to "imagine" open crotch garments.

Add: cludgie beat me to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2013 11:43AM by crom.

Suddenly the whole having-sex-with-garments on thing makes a little more sense...

It was in the SLC temple 1975 my first time. They were the long wrist to ankle, but they were buttoned, not tied. Maybe other temples loosened the requirements, like when the movie was introduced but SLC kept the live ceremony.

The one I had was tricot one piece with open crotch.

I also remember having two-piecers at home.

Neither one of these sound like the one cludgie is describing.


Ana

I was married in 1976. You wore street garmies in the temple then. The long temple garments had been taken out a couple years prior. However, we still had the onsies for street garments. They announced the two-piecers in 1980. I remember the year very well because of where I was. But we were so poor that hubby would only let me buy one pair of 2-piecers that I could wear to the doctor and things like that. Of course, he had to immediately have a whole new set of garmies and all 2-piecers. I wore the onsies until I wore them out several years later. HATED it so much. You people who were never confined to those awful things have no idea what you missed.

I clearly remember the flappy crotch short version one piecers. Not quite what you're talking about, but still pretty bad to the millennial generation of TBMs. :)

My parents were married in '77, so I kind of doubt they owned the full length style, but if they'd known about them, I think my mom would have wanted them. She was as fundy as you can get while remaining in the mainstream version of mormonism.


Someone posted a picture of a New Zealander holding up a set of long style garmies, but I don't remember if they tied in front. I am pretty sure cricket got it for the other website, but other people here must have captured it too.
It was posted mistakenly on a mormon friendly site where volunteers in yellow shirts were supposed to have been shown and taken down within a couple days.

I remember them well. I was given my own complete set of temple clothing by my TBM parents. The set included not only the apron, robe, sash, slippers and hat, but also a shield, a towel (for drying off after the washing & anointing) and a pair of those garments.

Here's a photo of a New Zealand Mormon woman in her temple clothes and also holding up the old-style garment. (This photo was recently on New Zealand news!)

http://packham.n4m.org/templeclothing2.jpg

Edit: SORRY! I gave the wrong link! Now it's corrected.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2013 01:58PM by RPackham.

That link doesn't work...

Sounds just like the picture I described, but the link doesn't work for me either. :)

Sorry about the broken link.

Try: http://packham.n4m.org/templeclothing2.jpg

Yeah! That's the one!
Link works. :)

I wish I could get her to turn the thing around, I want to see the back.

Well , I can now say I'm really creeped out . Ill never understand it .

If mormons only could take a small step back, and look at this sort of stuff, they would see immediately how crazy this is! And what a cult environment they are in!

But that's the trouble... the can't take that step back and look objectively.

It is just bat sh#t crazyness. Idiotic, cultish, brainwashed lunacy!

BTW, I only remember the short version one pieced garments.
Learned about them when we were investigators (I was 10) and we were having a snowball fight with the missionaries.

My mom, my sister and I ambushed the poor lad and kept pulling at his undershirt to try to get it up, so we could tug snow under it...
I can still hear the poor kid squeal!!

ROTFLMAO!!!


By the time I went to the temple 10 years later they had changed to the two pieced garments.

At the washing and annointing they used a HUGE! 1 piecer, but you were allowed to change into your own afterwards.

Yup! Got the entire temple kit just like RPackham. Only difference was the long garment buttoned, didn't tie. Then wore the "street" one piece with the open crotch. Two-pieces were a great improvement! Dropping them altogether was even better!

You just brought up a good point. When I went through the temple they were single piece that were brought up from underneath the poncho thing. You could put the whole thing on without removing the "shield" poncho. Now with two piece garments I wonder how this is done for the top part? I guess it is passed through the hole in the poncho over your head, then arms inserted once beneath. No? I thought the whole washing and anointing thing was rather weird, uncomfortable and awkward.

I am so glad that I am a nevermo because I would not be able to hack wearing them especially during the middle of the summer. I don't care which f-ing style they were. For those of you who are finally free of those ugly ass things, enjoy the freedom because it can't get any better than being able to pick out your own underwear and have a say in the style and color of the damn things. I can't imagine my worthiness being based on a pair of dumb looking underwear.

I remember my mom talking about those. She first went 1960s or early 70s.

TG