LDS Church: Sexist?

[_Yoda]

I wore them as a sacrifice, showing my obedience. But they were destroying my life, my marriage, my sense of being, my sanity.

I'm a little curious about this one, too, Truth Dancer. How was wearing garments destroying your marriage? Was your husband a non-member? I can see that as definitely problematic...but if you were both members, and had both been through the temple, I'm a little confused at how wearing the garments would cause marital strife.

[_Yoda]

I agree that many would have a problem with such and approach but if you were fine with it and were comfortable in a TR interview with what you do and how you answer most bishops are not going to probe a whole lot more then that.

I agree with Jason on this one.

Actually, if they're not ok with it, they don't have a leg to stand on. They have to stick to the questions...period. If they start to deviate, you have every right to tell them...."stick to the questions." I've done that before. ;)

[_Mercury]

I don't have all the answers, but I know the fundamental basics.

So you are denying a woman the right to succeed in life based on incomplete information? Hmmm.

And I think FUNDAMENTAL is a good word to describe your faith.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So then you are implying that how often a person wears the garments is open to self interpretation like the WoW?

Not when it comes to receiving a temple recommend -- the TR-question about wearing the garment is very clear and leaves little wiggle room. Otherwise, yes, the individual endowed member can decide how much to wear the garment.

I interpret the WoW to allow me to drink iced coffees, no HOT chocolate, beer(mild drink from barley), and only wear the garments when I attend the temple. I also interpret tithing to be 10% of my net-net. After all of my bills are paid, LDS can have 10% of whats left.

The Church takes no position on gross-vs.-net tithing, other than to say that "members of the Church should pay 'one-tenth' of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income." Whether that is gross income or net income is up to the individual member, in my opinion.

Is a Mormon allowed that freedom?

I think so. The only significant action the Church takes against one who doesn't wear the garment, or pay a full tithe, or keep the WofW (only certain parts, not the whole thing, like eat good foods and exercise -- there are plenty of TR-carrying but very unhealthy members out there), is to be denied entry into the temple. And, let's face it, once a person has gone through the temple for him/herself the initial time, every time thereafter is for a dead person, so the temple ordinances are not denied to an endowed member who is later denied a renewal of the TR.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I wore them as a sacrifice, showing my obedience. But they were destroying my life, my marriage, my sense of being, my sanity.

I'm a little curious about this one, too, Truth Dancer. How was wearing garments destroying your marriage? Was your husband a non-member? I can see that as definitely problematic...but if you were both members, and had both been through the temple, I'm a little confused at how wearing the garments would cause marital strife.

Okay Liz I like you ..but if can't see how wearng garments could cause problems in a marriage well then I am curious as to why you don't understand Truth Dancer????

Garments are just plain creepy.....

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

I'm NOT suggesting most folks have issues with garments (although I am absolutely certain many women do... many men too if they are being honest regarding their wives needing to wear them 24/7), but I'm saying you and Rollo, are rare in that you believe they are totally symbolic.

I don't want to get into particulars about the difficulties garments caused me but lets just say, I have never worn anything more uncomfortable, unattractive, irritating, ugly and odd. As I said, I wore them out of obedience ... as a sacrifice demonstrating my willingness to follow the prophet and abide by the rules of the church.

I don't think they are nearly so bad for men and I have met a few women who like them but in my opinion, it is odd for women to have to wear undergarments designed for women two hundred years ago.

For those folks who enjoy them and find them meaningful GREAT! I really mean this. :-)

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I'm NOT suggesting most folks have issues with garments (although I am absolutely certain many women do... many men too if they are being honest regarding their wives needing to wear them 24/7), but I'm saying you and Rollo, are rare in that you believe they are totally symbolic.

I don't want to get into particulars about the difficulties garments caused me but lets just say, I have never worn anything more uncomfortable, unattractive, irritating, ugly and odd. As I said, I wore them out of obedience ... as a sacrifice demonstrating my willingness to follow the prophet and abide by the rules of the church.

I don't think they are nearly so bad for men and I have met a few women who like them but in my opinion, it is odd for women to have to wear undergarments designed for women two hundred years ago.

I personally find them very comfortable, but (I admit) I think they are very ugly on women and wish that wearing them was optional. They are very out-of-date and not becoming on a woman at all (which, perhaps, was the original intent by the prudish designers?). But, unfortunately, they've become more than symbolic in Mormonism, which explains the obsessive demand that the garment be worn as much as possible (except for the three "S's," of course: sports, showers, and sex!).

[_Bond...James Bond]

(except for the three "S's," of course: sports, showers, and sex!).

Aren't there some older members that leave them on even for some of these?

Bond

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Aren't there some older members that leave them on even for some of these?

Yes, I've heard that (and probably some younger members do as well). But as for me and my house .... ;)

[_Sam Harris]

Why do you choose to highlight the first part of my post and not the second?

Since when is the relationship between men and women solely sexual based? What is the old saying? Behind every great man is a great woman? I think that sums it up.

And stop with the "Man came from bacteria" garbage, to reject creation is to reject Chist and your full potential.

Gaz

Gaz,

Um...the sun, you know, that thing by which we determine a 24-hour day...it wasn't created until the 4th day. According to the creation story. So how do you know how long those other "days" were prior? Not only that, but your theology teaches that one of God's days is like a thousand of ours. How do you back that up? And quit being sanctimonious. You don't want people to be that amused at your expense.