Why everyone else thinks garments are ridiculous

[_Cardinal Biggles]

I don't think they're weird or ridiculous, so much as I think that they're inconvenient and Masonic.

That's what I think of mostly now when I think of garments. Freemasonry. It's just another reminder to me of the un-originality of Mormonism. It's just another reminder to me of the made-up nature of Joseph Smith's religion.

And to think that my Mom bought into that B.S. about it being restored from the time of Solomon. Gah.

[_ludwigm]

I don't know if they are ridiculous.

I know they make the things behind them unsavory.
Unappetizing, if this is the better word...

[_Drifting]

I don't know if they are ridiculous.

I know they make the things behind them unsavory.
Unappetizing, if this is the better word...

Wouldn't it be fun if for Valentines Day Deseret Distribution sold edible garments?

Manna From Heaven flavour obviously...

[_Buffalo]

Apologists often compare garments to a nun's habit or a yarmulke or a priestly collar, only worn under the clothing. Sure, that's fine. Lots of religions have some sort of holy item of clothing (though not usually as totemic in the modern West as Mormon garments seem to be). But here's why everyone else thinks garments ("sacred underwear") are ridiculous. By making your cloth into a pair of underwear, you're exposing it to the things that really would defile it.

What if you were to take a yarmulke and rub it all over your genitals, your butt, and (if you're a woman) your breasts? Wouldn't that defile it? What if you were to do that to the veil in the temple? Feces, semen and menstrual blood are all "unclean" per Jewish law. Contact with them would render you unclean as a Jew and you'd need to undergo a purification ritual. Garments shouldn't touch the floor, but they're exposed to urine stains, skid marks, semen and menstrual blood as a manner of normal usage. Those of us who served missions in Latin America also exposed our garments to full-on projectile diarrhea, at least once. It's a bad joke. That's why everyone laughs at your holy underwear, faithful Mormons.

So you think non-Mormons who ridicule Mormon garments as "Magic Underwear" do so because they have determined that LDS garments conflict with unnamed ancient purity laws, and thus produce the opposite of the intended effect? I suppose that's one theory. I think it's far more likely that the people who are the most vocal about LDS garments are (1) generally looking for something to bitch about, and (2) are amused by Latter-day Saints who actually attribute supernatural powers to their garments.

Well, I suppose I'm saying it's just common sense, then and now, that if you have some holy object, it's going to be defiled if you rub it on your balce.

[_maklelan]

Well, I suppose I'm saying it's just common sense, then and now, that if you have some holy object, it's going to be defiled if you rub it on your balce.

Right, because common sense is what governs biblical purity laws. So now we're left with concluding that the people who make fun of "Magic Underwear" do so because while they're not aware of any actual prohibitions, it just makes sense that wearing sacred garments over your naughty bits would have been frowned upon. This is THE reason that people ridicule "Magic Underwear" in your mind?

[_Hades]

Right, because common sense is what governs biblical purity laws.

Good point. There is no common sense in biblical purity laws. No one should ever accuse the Bible God of having common sense.

[_Buffalo]

Well, I suppose I'm saying it's just common sense, then and now, that if you have some holy object, it's going to be defiled if you rub it on your balce.

Right, because common sense is what governs biblical purity laws. So now we're left with concluding that the people who make fun of "Magic Underwear" do so because while they're not aware of any actual prohibitions, it just makes sense that wearing sacred garments over your naughty bits would have been frowned upon. This is THE reason that people ridicule "Magic Underwear" in your mind?

Certain things are common sense. Identify the actions normal people might identify as broadly sacrilegious:

Ejaculating on a statue of the Virgin Mary
Farting on a crucifix
Rubbing your balls on a yarmelke
Douching with holy water
Pressing your genitals up against the Quran.

[_ludwigm]

edible garments?

Josephine Baker in banana...

. . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

... and after harvest ...

(for higher resolution see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Josep ... lesque.JPG)

[_Buffalo]

Ludwig, you trying to get this thread thrown into outer darkness?

[_maklelan]

Certain things are common sense.

Or you can't sustain an argument for it, so you have to just assert it's self-evident.

Identify the actions normal people might identify as broadly sacrilegious:

Ejaculating on a statue of the Virgin Mary
Farting on a crucifix
Rubbing your balls on a yarmelke
Douching with holy water
Pressing your genitals up against the Quran.

All actions considered inappropriate because they violate in a rhetorically significant way the very obvious and very clear functions for which those items are designated. When an item is specifically designated for covering the nether regions, you can hardly say the natural or inevitable processes of that region somehow violate the items intended function. You would do well to spend some time looking into ancient concepts of purity before coming here to lecture the stupid Mormons about why people mock their garments.