I wish mormonism would be the dominant religion

Scott C. said:

I don't think that the original Mormon garments varied much, if at all, from the underwear of the day, except for the symbols. In other words, I don't think they were seen an unusually modest or funny looking back in the day.I did a Google search on early 1800's underwear.

Click to expand...

"In 1842, just two months after being initiated into Freemasonry, Joseph Smith introduced the wearing of garments to a select group of men. On Wednesday, May 4th, 1842, Joseph Smith initiated nine men into his new inner-circle called the "Holy Order," the "Quorum," the "Holy Order of the Holy Priesthood," or the "Quorum of the Anointed." This ritual would later come to be known as the LDS temple endowment.

The original garment was designed only for priesthood men, after the pattern of mid-nineteenth century longjohns. It was originally a one-piece garment made of plain, unbleached cotton cloth that covered the body from ankles to wrists. No buttons were used on the garment. Four to five tie-strings took their place to hold the front closed.Mormon LDS Garments The garment had little collars which were not visible from the outside of the shirt worn over it.

​

In the crotch area was a large flap, which ran from the back below the waist all the way under the body and met the front tie closing. The flap was completely double so the men had to pull it apart in order to expose themselves.

Ceremonial markings on the garment were originally snipped into the cloth as part of the man's washing and anointing ceremony. This helped keep the markings secret from those who had not been through the ritual, including the women who sewed the garments. These marks made during the endowment were much more prominent than the marks in garments today."
source

​

Why wouldn't these work?
​

Skwim said:

Why wouldn't these work?

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

"In 1842, just two months after being initiated into Freemasonry, Joseph Smith introduced the wearing of garments to a select group of men. On Wednesday, May 4th, 1842, Joseph Smith initiated nine men into his new inner-circle called the "Holy Order," the "Quorum," the "Holy Order of the Holy Priesthood," or the "Quorum of the Anointed." This ritual would later come to be known as the LDS temple endowment.

The original garment was designed only for priesthood men, after the pattern of mid-nineteenth century longjohns. It was originally a one-piece garment made of plain, unbleached cotton cloth that covered the body from ankles to wrists. No buttons were used on the garment. Four to five tie-strings took their place to hold the front closed.Mormon LDS Garments The garment had little collars which were not visible from the outside of the shirt worn over it.

​

In the crotch area was a large flap, which ran from the back below the waist all the way under the body and met the front tie closing. The flap was completely double so the men had to pull it apart in order to expose themselves.

Ceremonial markings on the garment were originally snipped into the cloth as part of the man's washing and anointing ceremony. This helped keep the markings secret from those who had not been through the ritual, including the women who sewed the garments. These marks made during the endowment were much more prominent than the marks in garments today."
source

​

What I found interesting was that,

" In 1965 for the first time, Mormon women received temple garments modified for them.

The approved modified design for women has a button front rather than string ties, a brassiere top patterned after the brassiere top of garments used for day-time wear, a helanca stretch insert in the back at the waist, and widened overlapping back panels with a helanca stretch piece at the top of each panel and a button to assure panels remaining closed. All other features of the garment, including the collar, long legs, and long sleeves, remain the same as heretofore."
Source: ibid.

​

And just as interesting is the reason the underwear was constructed in the first place.

"Purpose

The original purpose of wearing garments was to remind Smith's priesthood brethren of their sacred oaths - especially oaths of secrecy regarding the plural marriage doctrine.
Source:ibid.
​

Which, you have to admit, is a very curious way to remind a person of their sacred oaths. Special underwear?!?

And considering its original purpose, why not update it to present day fashion?

Why wouldn't these work?
​

Click to expand...

Triumphant_Loser said:

Is that the Masonic square and compass on either side of the chest?

Click to expand...

Scott C. said:

Any style clothing could perhaps work. One purpose for the garment is to encourage modesty in dress, however. If you have a modest garment, you need modest clothes to cover it.

Click to expand...

Honestly, having been raised a Mormon and having seen garments all of my life, and having worn them for 37 years, they don't seem odd to me. They actually seem intuitive. As a teenager I came to know that "when I become an adult and make covenants in the temple, I will wear a garment which serves as a reminder to me of the covenants that I made and to the importance of covering the body modestly at all times." Not odd at all.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

Wouldn't modest over-clothing work regardless if the underwear was modest or not? And do you regard the modern-day underwear on the man and woman images I posted to be immodest?

So, before you were an adult what kind of underwear did you wear? How about young females?

Click to expand...

Scott C. said:

This is an odd conversation...haha...

As a kid I wore the same undies as anyone else. All Mormon kids do the same thing, boys and girls.

Yes, a person could wear modest clothes over any underwear, including commando.

Modesty is relative by culture and circumstances. I walk around in shorts and a bare chest at the beach. I would feel immodest like that in the mall. But I feel comfortable like that at the stores by the beach where everyone else is in a swim suit.

No, I don't think normal adult underwear is immodest. It would be immodest to run around in underwear in public. But if your underwear is covered, it can't be immodest.

The garment does affect the outer clothes that I wear. For example, I might wear a tank top to a baseball game on a hot summer day. But, because I wear garments, I don't wear the tank top, as the garment would be exposed. I could choose to lose the garment and wear the tank top, but that would be against my belief to wear the garment. But, when I go lift weights at the gym, the garment is off and the tank top is on.

Mormons make decisions on a regular basis as to if the activity warrants the garment or not. I went on a 16 mile hike with my daughter and son in law through a river. It was hot. They chose to hike without the garment and wore shorts and a tank top. I chose to wear the garment and clothes to cover them. Different Mormons make different decisions.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

Okay. So the Mormon underwear thing is not all that binding. More of an option when circumstances dictate: No reason not to wear it, then it should be worn. That about it?

Click to expand...

Rotcha said:

Christianity and Islam moves away for Joseph Smithreach:

Click to expand...

Monk Of Reason said:

It is one of the few religions that absolutely rests upon racism.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

You talking about Mormonism? If so, how about an explanation. Heck, explain yourself even if it isn't about Mormonism.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Monk Of Reason said:

It is one of the few religions that absolutely rests upon racism.

Click to expand...

Monk Of Reason said:

Are you aware at all of the story? Do you want that re-told or are you already informed and have an objection? If it is the latter can we start with the objection?

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

Yeah, tell me how Mormonism, which in 1997 had "approximately 500,000 black members"* "absolutely rests upon racism." Or is there some other form of racism going on?

* From Rotcha's link

Click to expand...

Sapiens said:

From LDS Honesty: Lying for the Lord :

The church's official position on blacks and the priesthood was that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord. For decades missionaries issued this standard message when answering investigators' questions. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever received a revelation denying black Africans the priesthood. On the contrary, Elijah Abel, a black man, was ordained a Seventy, and Joseph likely permitted the ordination of at least one other black member to the Mormon priesthood. (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)


Brigham Young formally instituted the ban on priesthood to males with African blood. In an address before the territorial legislature on January 16, 1852, Wilford Woodruff recorded that Brigham said that persons having "one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now..."
Young also went further and declared that if a white person should marry a black person, they would both be required to give their lives in blood atonement (including any offspring that resulted in the union) in order to be forgiven by God for their sin (equal to murder in seriousness). (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973 and Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss Editors, Neither White nor Black, "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview," Signature Books, Midvale, UT, 1984. pp. 68, 89-90)
The church has never admitted that Brigham Young invented the policy based on Young and others' personal prejudices, common to that era. In fact current leaders and apologists try to convince those ignorant of Mormon historical practices, that the church has always been sensitive to those with brown skin.

The church's doctrine and practice of denying those with African blood the priesthood until 1978 resulted in a negative public image for the church and its members. To defend themselves, church leaders claimed that the doctrine was never the result of racial prejudice. This is contradicted by numerous statements of its leaders. Brigham Young taught that blacks were created to be slaves, they "were naturally designed for that purpose, and [their] capacities are more befitting that, than any other station in society." He reiterated that they "are naturally designed to occupy the position of 'servant of servants'." He cautioned that members should not "elevate them, as some seem disposed, to an equality with those who Nature and Nature's God has indicated to be their masters, their superiors ..." (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)

Brigham Young signed into law acts legalizing Negro and Indian slavery, in his capacity as Territorial governor. While it can be argued that many whites felt this way during the 1800's, one is reminded that the Mormons claim that God engages in direct communication and inspires their leaders. (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)
When LDS leaders spoke, it was the equivalent of God speaking (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38). Brigham Young's statements do not reflect ideals that are more equitable and compassionate than the ignorant, prejudice demonstrated by other ordinary 19th century humans. In fact Young's/God's statements do not rise to the level of the enlightened few who sought equal rights and social justice for all.

Further evidence of Mormon prejudice against African Americans can be found in the Utah legislature's refusal to pass public accommodation and fair employment bills on at least four occasions between 1945 and 1951. Utah joined the nation in discriminating against blacks in hotels, restaurants, movie theaters and bowling alleys-they were not allowed to associate with whites. (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)

In Washington DC some church Relief Society women objected to sitting beside "two colored sisters who are apparently faithful members of the church." The First Presidency responded to the situation by suggesting that the two "colored sisters" be "discretely approached" and told to sit in the rear of the chapel or far on the other side away from others. (Neither White nor Black, edited by Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, pp. 68, 89-90) It could be argued that the god Mormons worshipped was racist, if they insist it was god who instituted the priesthood ban.

Apostle Mark E. Petersen made these racist statements. "It isn't that he [the Negro] just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'." (Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954. Found in Shadow or Reality? p. 279.) LDS apologists insist that Petersen was not offering official views of the LDS leadership. However, LDS leaders have never offered an official repudiation of Petersen's statement.

Not that people from other religions, except perhaps Islam, or with no religious affiliation were any better through history.

Click to expand...

Triumphant_Loser said:

Does no one find it the least bit coincidental that God's mind seems to change with the times? Whenever the culture hates black people, then God hates black people. Then whenever the people start to change their attitude on race, just like magic, God changes his mind too, makes a complete 180, and says "Okay okay, looks like I got that whole 'hating black people' thing wrong. Whoops, My bad."

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

I'm not disputing that at one time Mormons were quite racist, but it appears this is no longer the case, which is why I made it a point to underline the last "s" in Monk Of Reason's "rests" in his assertion "it is one of the few religions that absolutely rests upon racism" because he puts it in the present tense, not the past tense.

I'm not here to defend Mormonism, but if people are going to vilify them for what they once did, then other Christians should be treated likewise: Like Baptists

In 1845 "The southern Baptists were absolutely convinced that the Bible taught that God had divinely sanctioned slavery."
source
​

Or Catholics

The Catholic Church's insistence that it's doctrine not be challenged by science led to many atrocities, such as making Galileo face the church's the inquisition under threat of excommunication and torture to “abjure, curse, and detest” heliocentrism.
source
​

Or Presbyterian, and Congregationalists

Their roots go back to the Puritans and their infamous witch hunts.
​

Seems a lot of religious denominations have skeletons in their closets, but I don't think they should necessarily be used to judge their current conduct and beliefs.

Click to expand...