I think it’s a given that there are many endowed members in the Church who do not wear garments. I’ve always wondered how they come to the decision to stop wearing them. I mean one day they are wearing them, and the next day they’re not. It’s not like they slowly disappear over time.
And for those who do not vehemently oppose the church, I wonder what went through their minds when the decision was made, if a decision was made.
I’m believing and active. For me it’s all about the weather as described here: http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/07/05/temple-fashion/
I went through the temple in 1990 before the changes were made to the ceremony. I’ll keep this less complicated and just say I disapproved and never went back…but kept wearing my garments for the next 13 years.
Over that span of time, I started to get over the *fear* that if I took them off, something bad would happen to me and like you said, one day I was wearing them and the next day I wasn’t.
I’ve been garment free for a couple of years and the thought of having to put them back on is not one I even entertain. I am too freethinking and that part of Mormonism is too controlling for who I am now.
Wendy, was it a conscious decision you made, or did you just happen to forget to put them on one day? Do you still participate in Mormonism?
It was a conscious decision and yes, I still participate in Mormonism but I’m quite unorthodox and rarely attend regular Sunday meetings.
Steve, I’m having a little trouble choking down your statement that you’re “believing and active” while you publicly proclaim the Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve to be a false prophet.
Itbugaf, I actually don’t express that view in public, but here in the Nacle behind a handle, Steve EM (Evangelical Mormon), where more open discussion is tolerated. As per the other thread, I don’t do it with any enthusiasm and I’m not seeking to convert others to my view point. While I’m not Joe Mormon, and have written off some church leaders, past and present, as uninspired, I believe in JC, JS, the BofM, love my wife and kids, am active, tithe, teach primary, go to the temple when I can, support a son on a mission, don’t always wear my Gs, didn’t always live the LofC and the WofW, kind of fudge things on certain temple recommend questions (but my answers are technically honest), etc. In short, I’m with the program in some areas and in other areas I go my own way when something doesn’t make sense to me. In any event, I don’t wish to undermine anyone’s faith in discussions of this type
I am having this problem right now. I went through, loved the temple, but I have not found any garments that fit me right. I am in a constant state of discomfort, it’s like a Chinese water torture, something always pinching, pulling, or twisting around. It’s personally, mentally, and physically a challenge to continue to wear them.
However, I haven’t removed them. I don’t think I will, but if I felt like I could still be a member in good standing without wearing them, they would be off in a flash. For me not wearing them would have nothing to do with no longer believing, it would be a matter of peace and comfort.
As for other people I know who have removed theirs, it was always when they stopped believing in the church all together. I think it’s easier to make the choice about wearing them or not when it is a matter of belief.
Aimee Roo
Have you tried the bottoms with lycra in them? Much more comfortable, I have found.
Rick, the fact that you conceal your identity while denouncing an Apostle and Prophet doesn’t make your actions non-public. It just makes them more insidious. Your words are just as public as if you shouted them on a street corner. It’s also more than a little duplicitous to go about telling people on the web why you think President Packer is deluded and cruel, and then say you’re not trying to sway anyone to your point of view.
ltbugaf
You know, I for one find I am more concerned with my testimony and not with others’. As long as my testimony is strong and I am doing all I should to do what is right (and of course it is a work in progress) than I don’t really worry about what other people do. I have enough of my own foibles to worry about other’s percieved wrong doings.
Steve (I am sure it was him and not Rick you meant, Rick is pretty clear about where he stands :)) is on his own path and whatever he says shouldn’t worry anyone else. I am not concerned with what he says about Pres Packer, doesn’t change my testimony of him being an Apostle of the Lord.
Aimee Roo… I feel for you!! For over 20 years I have gone through the yanking and pulling and having things crawling up and it was to the point of insanity.. then Mary suggested the Lycra ones about 1 1/2 years ago or so and what an absolute difference!! Obviously enough women complained about the same problem that they started making them with this new fabric.
As for the not wearing them.. I think although it is a conscious thought to all of a sudden to stop wearing them (after all how do you decide to not wear them one day without thinking about it?)sometimes it could very well be your state of spirituality has been lowered for whatever reason and because of this Satan has been able to get in and “convince” you it’s ok just this once… could be you are going to the doctor’s, a pair of shorts/skirt that you REALLY really love is just a tad too short so you take your bottoms off JUST THIS ONCE… then another time and another and another here and there.
First thing you realize is they have been off… Satan uses wonderful tools and when you are spiritually weak for whatever reason he can slide into your life without you even knowing he is there until it is too late.
Please excuse me for putting Rick’s name in where I meant Steve. That wasn’t even a Freudian slip–I promise!
Mary, I AM concerned with what Steve says about President Packer, especially in a public forum, where he stands a good chance of leading others down the same road of apostasy.
I know you are.
But really, there isn’t much need. Or there shouldn’t be a need to be so worried. People are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. My main responsibility is to strengthen my own testimony, hopefully others’ as well, through my example (such as it may be, boy I fail in so many other areas), and especially to help my children develop testimonies. If their’s are strong and their faith is in the Lord, than dissenters won’t faze them. They have never fazed me.
Mary, I have tried them. Thanks for the suggestion though. Let’s just say I have tried every style, in just about every size. I can’t even tell you how much money and time I have spent trying to fix the problem. I even tried the one peices! That’s how desperate I am. ;)
Well, I think you should tell them. I know exactly what you mean about comfort! I am happy the lycra works for me, and I will seriously complain if they discontinue them!!! Ever!!!!!
Mary, I’d like to believe that people can take care of themselves. But the fact is, every day people are led away from their testimonies and away from the Priesthood by people just like Steve, who protest that they’re not trying to influence anyone, but who convince others that true Prophets are false ones. If Steve wants to choose apostasy for himself he shouldn’t be sharing it with others. I hope, though, that he’ll repent instead, and seek a real testimony of President Packer’s authority and leadership.
Itbugaf, Please give it a break. You dragged my views out on the other thread. I don’t see what they have to do directly with wearing Gs or not. Let’s just agree to disagree about some of our leaders. Please.
but ltbugaf, the fact remains we aren’t responsible for telling other people what the need to improve. we have too much to do on ourselves.
Steve, I do agree that we disagree. Have I indicated otherwise? I just think you should stop telling people that Apostles are cruel and deluded, that weather is an excuse for breaking temple covenants, and so forth.
Mary, if a person who isn’t yet perfect can’t ever tell others what to work on, then we’ll have to shut down the Church entirely. I’m trying to protect the innocent and impressionable from the falsehoods that Steve has spread about President Packer. I plan to continue doing so.
By the way, I didn’t “drag” Steve’s views out of him on the previous thread. He came out on his own to tell the world that “BKP” as he respectfully calls him, teaches false cruelties and wrongly claims special knowledge. All I did was point out that in doing so he was rejecting President Packer outright.
ltbugaf, we are not to be judges in this realm. Are you Steve’s Bishop? No, it is NOT our responsibility to call each other to repentance. At least not in this regard. Are you perfect? Do you honestly feel that people are such idiots they are going to make up their minds based on what Steve is saying? Why not just give your personal opinion and leave it at that? You can say you don’t agree without saying Steve is apostate or trying to *make* him change. That isn’t up to you to decide. I don’t know how old you are, but in my life, in 34 years, I have learned some important things. It isn’t up to me who gets to the celestial kingdom. It isn’t up to me what other people believe. I can only do the best I can in my own stewardship. I can state my opinion, I can agree or disagree with someone, but *I* will be judged if I start making decisions on what someone else believes, what their membership or apostate status is. It isn’t up to me, it isn’t up to you to play God. Heavenly Father knows Steve’s heart. You do not. Nor do I. If he has things to answer to his Bishop about, then that is up to he and his bishop. Not you, not me. The internet isn’t really a good place to decide how apostate or not another person is. Nor is it anyone’s responsibility to do so.
There is such a thing as being too judgemental.
What does that mean about Steve’s judgments of President Packer?
To return to the original topic (since, largely because of me, we’ve been mostly re-discussing a previous thread), let me ask another question:
Is “the weather’s hot outside” an adequate excuse for violating a temple covenant?
“………you should stop telling people………that weather is an excuse for breaking temple covenants”
My understanding is we don’t covenant to wear the garment. We are told to wear it. Now we are asked the question in the recommend interview, and it’s one I kind of fudge (but I don’t out right lie) about. As per my post cited in comment #1, I wear them most of the time, although I lack personal motivation to do so. My excuses are mine alone, not something I dictate to others. A temple necklace pendant would be a nice alternative.
Wow–would you mind explaining the difference between your virtuous “fudging” and actual lying? You say “Yes,” but you mean….what?
It doesn’t matter what it means about Steve’s judgements about Pres Packer. You can state your opinion on that, but why go on to call him apostate, etc etc. Tell him you believe he is wrong, nothing wrong with that. But why go on to berate him and call him to repentance?
Mary,
Why call him an apostate? Because leading others away from true Apostles and Prophets by telling them that said Prophets and Apostles as false, deluded and cruel leaders is the very definition of apostasy.
Why call him to repentance? Because those who are committing apostasy need to repent.
But, as I said you are NOT God, you are NOT his Bishop. It isn’t up to you to decide. IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO CALL HIM TO REPENTANCE. It is NOT your stewardship to do so. Or to decide if he is apostate.
Oi, nothing so irritating as the self righteous.
Mary, if your standard is right, then you need to stop telling me to stop, right?
But on the other hand, if every member is a missionary, and every Priesthood holder has a responsibility to preach the gospel, stand up for the truth, and call all people to accept the gospel and repent, then I do have a duty to call to repentance.
Itbugaf, my rationale is covered in that Open Forum post (comment #1). Don’t wear them for intimacy (the entire night if I’m home with the wife). Don’t wear them for heavy physical activity (anytime I sweat a drop), swimming, etc.
Steve: I read your rationale the first time you posted the link. But I’m not asking about your rationale. I’m asking about why you think it’s honest to tell your bishop one thing when another thing is true.
Actually, I guess I’m not really asking why you think it’s honest, since you apparently don’t think it’s honest. You obviously don’t believe that “heavy physical activity” means “any time I sweat a drop.” You obviously don’t thionk “intimacy” means any time you’re in the same building with your wife. Since you don’t believe these yourself, and since you also clearly don’t believe the Apostles who wrote the questions would use such cutesy, self-serving interpretations, and since you also don’t believe your own bishop would ever go along your “rationale” (otherwise you’d be forthright with him), why do you think it’s OK to answer the question this way?
I tell the Bishop and SP just what’s in #31, minus the clarifiers in parentheses. Sorry I didn’t convey that.
Please have a look at #33.
In other words, why do you think you’re justified in being evasive, rather than forthright, in speaking with an anointed judge in Israel? Or do you reject his authority, too?
why should i not tell you to stop? i am not telling you what to believe, or that you are apostate. i am just telling you to stop playing judge and jury and leave steve alone.
missionary. not mission president. missionary shares, doesn’t make a final judgement. as i said, you don’t know his heart. you just think you do. yes, stand up for truth, but that’s not the same as telling people they are apostate. something wrong with that scenario.
you must be pretty young if you haven’t learned that by now.
oh and since when have we been given the responsibility of calling every person to repentance?
Mary, if it’s true that no one should tell another person he’s doing wrong, then you need to stop telling me I’m doing wrong.
I think my answers are honest and truthful. I believe Bishops and SPs have a spirit of discernment that if there is sometime amiss in my life that I need to work on before returning to the temple, they might not know the particulars, but they would be inspired to say something like “I perceive that there’s something you need to work on before I sign this. If you have a good idea what I’m talking about, you’re welcome to reschedule another interview when you corrected the matter. If there’s sometime amiss in your life that I can help you with right now, let’s talk about it.â€
So far, that’s never happened, so I guess I’m good to go.
So…the Bishop is a human lie detector, and if you get away with being dishonest, it must be OK.
I’d like to show respect for your views, but I just can’t.
oh ok. so i can’t defend someone? nope, that doesn’t hold water. yeah, i will tell you to lay off someone if i believe you are being too harsh. you are avoiding the whole issue by behaving as if you are more righteous, more obedient and therefore have the right to make any judgement on anyone you choose. not sure where you get permission to do that, but not from any Prophet I know of and certainly not from the Saviour.
Mary, do I have any responsibility to stand up to falsehoods? If someone comes to my town and starts teaching my children that Gordon B. Hinckley is a child molester, what should I do? Just assume that everyone can take care of himself and that I have no right to judge him? I don’t think so. I think I have a responsibility to fight falsehood and stand up for the truth.
When someone teaches that Boyd K. Packer is a cruel, delusional, and false prophet, I have a responsibility to stand up for the truth. When someone teaches that there’s no need to be forthright with a judge in Israel–that anything he doesn’t catch in your temple interview must therefore be OK–I have a responsibility to stand up for the truth.
You say you’re defending somebody. So am I. You’re defending an apostate who is leading others away from the truth. I’m defending a Prophet. I’m also defending the innocent people that this apostate may lead away from the truth.
ltbugaf, while I completely agree with your assessment, I don’t agree with your badgering. It may be best for you to leave well enough alone.
Mary is right that we don’t have the right to judge another, but Mary does have the right to moderate her own Blog :-)
I think it is clear that Steve (Evangelical Mormon) is not orthodox LDS. I think the fact that Steve declares that he is Evangelical (at least online) shows that he doesn’t think that the orthodox beleifs are correct or inspired.
That’s ok, and we should accept his personal beliefs, misguided as we feel they are. He will have to stand before his creator just as we will.
From my perspective, The problem here is that Itbugaf feels that this blog is an inappropriate place to be expressing opinions as potentially harmful to other LDS believers as he considers SteveEM to have expressed. The administrators of this blog do not appear to have a posting guideline, so Steve is not in any clear violation of blog policy. Nor have his posts been deleted or has he received a reprimand by Our Thoughts administration. If Itbugaf feels that a particular blog comment policy should be enforced here, he or she should take it up with the blog administrators outside of this thread.
“Mary does have the right to moderate her own Blog”
I think Mary has just as much right to condemn my views as I have to condemn Steve’s. I just point out the logical truth that if I have no such rights, neither does she.
“I don’t agree with your badgering”
I think if Steve were sincere in saying he doesn’t want to persuade anyone of his own views, he wouldn’t be expressing and arguing for them in a public forum. When you advocate something here, you invite disagreement.
“we should accept his personal beliefs”
Not when he is using them to undermine the faith of the innocent. If he really has no desire to convert anyone to his views, then he needs to keep those views to himself.
Itbugaf, I answer the questions truthfully w/ some fudging. I think you want me to inquire “My wife and I sleep nude together. I mean all night. We consider it part of intimacy. It that ok?”. I’m just not going to divulge private stuff like that or drag my wife into it. Don’t you think Bishops and SPs have discernment to know if a person needs to work on anything?
MahNahvu: I have no idea how you could believe I am talking about blog policy. I’m talking about the war between good and evil, light and darkness, truth and falsehood. Steve is spreading falsehoods. He’s spreading evil. He’s spreading darkness. I don’t think that’s a wrong thing to do because of some website policy. I think it’s wrong to do because it leads people away from salvation.
Steve, you already know that you’re not being forthright, or you wouldn’t have told us all that you’re “fudging.” If that’s not enough to tell you you’re doing wrong, then I don’t know what is.
I guess telling the bishop, “Every time I suspect that my body may excrete some sweat, I consider myself excused from wearing garments” would just be another detail that’s too darn intimate to discuss with a bishop (whose function is to discuss intimate things).
ltbugaf
I am not condemning your views, I am condemning your judgemental behaviour and your idea that it’s alright to cast the mote out of someone’s eye without remembering you have your own beam to take care of. My disagreement is with your approach. I have always had this idea that it isn’t my place to tell people how to live. Whether I agree or disagree with someone. Even Jesus Christ had more tolerance than you seem to have, and He at least, has the right to make a judgement call on someone’s aposstasy or lack thereof.
Like I said, when I (or you or anyone) has it all figured out, we can start calling people to repentance. In the meantime, worry about your own failings and not someone else’s.