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

[_krose]

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?

You're right, there is no such covenant. Or at least there wasn't as late as the 1990 version, and I don't think it has been added in later revisions.

More "lyin' fer the lard," it appears.

[_Drifting]

In a letter from the First Presidency dated 3 July 1974, Church members were reminded of the sacred nature of the garment: “The sacredness of the garment should be ever present and uppermost in the wearer’s mind; … the blessings which flow from the observance of our covenants are sufficiently great to recompense for any mere inconvenience. To break our covenants is to forfeit the protection and blessings promised for obedience to them.” 5

And in a letter to priesthood leaders dated 10 October 1988, the First Presidency made the following important statements regarding how the garment should be worn: “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. This sacred covenant is between the member and the Lord. Members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves any personal questions about the wearing of the garment. … The promise of protection and blessings is conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness in keeping the covenant.

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1997/08/the-t ... t?lang=eng

[_madeleine]

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.

A CTR ring would do.

[_why me]

You guys probably forgot but a while ago on a different thread I did say that people can wear garments when they want to. It is no big deal. No one really cares. And it is a personal decision. No problem.

Ann looks good. She looks hot. Certainly she is a modern day LDS woman. Instead of moaning and whining about the garments, you should all be positive about her.

But...the board can do no such thing.

[_Drifting]

You guys probably forgot but a while ago on a different thread I did say that people can wear garments when they want to. It is no big deal. No one really cares. And it is a personal decision. No problem.

This is blatantly and demonstrably untrue.
Please re read the thread paying particular attention to the quotes from Church Leaders expressing what the official stance on garments is.

[_selek]

You guys probably forgot but a while ago on a different thread I did say that people can wear garments when they want to. It is no big deal. No one really cares. And it is a personal decision. No problem.

Ann looks good. She looks hot. Certainly she is a modern day LDS woman. Instead of moaning and whining about the garments, you should all be positive about her.

But...the board can do no such thing.

I think she's hot and don't give a damn if she's wearing garmies or not.

Go GILFS!

[_just me]

You guys probably forgot but a while ago on a different thread I did say that people can wear garments when they want to. It is no big deal. No one really cares. And it is a personal decision. No problem.

This is blatantly and demonstrably untrue.
Please re read the thread paying particular attention to the quotes from Church Leaders expressing what the official stance on garments is.

Why me never has shown a working understanding of LDS culture or doctrine.

[_why me]

Why me never has shown a working understanding of LDS culture or doctrine.

Tell that to Ann. She seems to agree with me. She is a modern LDS woman, dressed to kill guys my age.

[_why me]

I think she's hot and don't give a damn if she's wearing garmies or not.

Go GILFS!

She is hot. I liked her on the TV interviews. Her outfits were sharp...her style was crisp...and she was articulate. A wonderful picture of what a LDS woman is.

[_Tchild]

You guys probably forgot but a while ago on a different thread I did say that people can wear garments when they want to. It is no big deal. No one really cares. And it is a personal decision. No problem.

Truthfully, I love your brand of Mormonism Why me. It is so cavalier and devil-may-care.

Actually though, wearing the garments are part and parcel of the very covenants you make/made in the temple, they are intertwined. That is why people are noticing that Ann is not wearing them. Sure she looks swell, but the point is that by foregoing the wearing of one's garments, that they are not fulfilling their temple covenants.

Ann looks good. She looks hot. Certainly she is a modern day LDS woman. Instead of moaning and whining about the garments, you should all be positive about her.

We all think she looks good. It is the fact that she proclaims to be an active Mormon, but she doesn't abide by the temple covenants she has made (at least in this case), that is causing all the ruckus.