Ann Romney, still not wearing the Lord's pants...

[_why me]

Okay. This is an amusing thread. WhyMe, please keep talking.

Well, anyway, I like her style. The black outfit was great. I need a woman like Ann in my life.

[_Drifting]

The Why Me apologetic:

1. The pictures been doctored
*defence shown to be erronious so move to 2*
2. It's not the same dress
*defence shown to be erroneous move to 3*
3. The pictures been doctored, see the hem line
*defence shown to be erroneous move to 4*
4. Ann has MS
*what? what are you talking about and how is that relevant to the thread?*
5. Yeah...but...anyway...I fancy Ann...
*the defence rests....*

[_Drifting]

"Explain that those who have participated in the temple ceremony are privileged to wear the garment of the holy priesthood. In a statement to the Church, the First Presidency said:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …

“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. … When the garment must be removed, … it should be restored as soon as possible.

“The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn. Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior” (First Presidency letter, 10 Oct. 1988)."

http://www.LDS.org/manual/endowed-from- ... e?lang=eng

[_krose]

... as a protection against temptation and evil.

Hmm. Comparing my 19 years before walking into the Manti temple to the 10 "protected" years after, I don't recall any difference in temptation. None at all.

I certainly noticed a sharp decline in temptation after giving up the protection, along with the notion of devils and demons and tempting spirits.

[_Joe Geisner]

I have wanted to comment on this post and the previous one about the same subject, but because of health problems, I was unable to write-up a response. I am hoping what I am about to write is even coherent!

I am a liberal Democrat and quite proud of the fact. But if Ann Romney can do some good by not wearing garments and get people talking about why garments are even worn outside the temple, then she will make a major jump in my estimation.

In 1935-1936 a committee of Apostles met to discuss changes in the garment. The committee was made up of George F. Richards, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard. See Devery Anderson's The Development of LDS Temple Worship (240-243) Throughout the meetings one person voted no on every change suggested. From other readings, I am convinced it was Joseph Fielding Smith. He tried to stop every change. In some cases he was successful.

One change that was discussed was the wearing of garments only in the temple.(see Anderson (p. xl) Three members could see no reason for not implementing this policy, only one was opposed. Smith put a stop to this progressive idea. He also never wanted to do away with wearing the old style garment, and fought the committee on this issue. He lost the last debate, but unfortunately he won on the debate about only wearing garments in the temple and faithful Mormons continue to wear them all the time, even though three Apostles saw no need to do such a thing. Only one radical voice put a stop to progress.

If Ann can continue forcing people to discuss this, maybe change that is eighty years over due will happen. One can only hope.

[_angsty]

In 1935-1936 a committee of Apostles met to discuss changes in the garment. The committee was made up of George F. Richards, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard. See Devery Anderson's The Development of LDS Temple Worship (240-243) Throughout the meetings one person voted no on every change suggested. From other readings, I am convinced it was Joseph Fielding Smith. He tried to stop every change. In some cases he was successful.

One change that was discussed was the wearing of garments only in the temple.(see Anderson (p. xl) Three members could see no reason for not implementing this policy, only one was opposed. Smith put a stop to this progressive idea. He also never wanted to do away with wearing the old style garment, and fought the committee on this issue. He lost the last debate, but unfortunately he won on the debate about only wearing garments in the temple and faithful Mormons continue to wear them all the time, even though three Apostles saw no need to do such a thing. Only one radical voice put a stop to progress.

Holy Cow! Judging by how precious contemporary Mormons are about the wearing of the garment, I wouldn't have expected past leadership to be even willing to discuss it like this. Of course, considering how the design of the garment has evolved, clearly there has been a lot of discussion over it.

The idea of garments being a temple-only thing would probably freak my parents and in-laws out-- until the policy was actually instituted. Then, they'd act like it was inspired and not all that controversial.

[_Joe Geisner]

Holy Cow! Judging by how precious contemporary Mormons are about the wearing of the garment, I wouldn't have expected past leadership to be even willing to discuss it like this. Of course, considering how the design of the garment has evolved, clearly there has been a lot of discussion over it.

The idea of garments being a temple-only thing would probably freak my parents and in-laws out-- until the policy was actually instituted. Then, they'd act like it was inspired and not all that controversial.

angsty,

When T. Edgar Lyon, famous for being one of the progressive Institute teachers at the UofU, was getting his endowment for his mission call. His father had bought him the "new style" garment at ZCMI for him to use in his endowment. The Temple worker and I believe Temple president refused to give him his endowment, until they were forced to contact the administration building to verify the change.

As you point out, we get set in our ways and think it always has to be this way. I hope Ann Romney will continue to push the envelop (or is that the hemline)

[_Tobin]

OR

They could just do away with garments and let people buy decals to wear under their clothes. As I've said before, it is silly for the Church to be in the underwear business.

[_Equality]

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives.

Is this true? I don't remember a covenant to wear the garment. I do remember an "instruction" to do so. I suppose it could be covered under the covenant to live the law of obedience, but that's not exactly the same thing as saying that one makes a covenant specifically to wear the garment. Or is it?

[_krose]

They could just do away with garments and let people buy decals to wear under their clothes. As I've said before, it is silly for the Church to be in the underwear business.

No. Tattoos!