Why is the term magic underwear offensive?

[_DarkHelmet]

I realize the people who say it are trying to offend Mormons, but it got me thinking about what is so offensive about it. The idea of magical underwear come from urban myths about people being protected by the garments, as well as statements from church leaders that the garments offer protection. Outsiders are not making it up. They are simply learning about it from Mormons.

Famous Mormons like Willard Marriott advertise the magical quality of Mormon garments on 60 minutes:

Mike Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments?
Willard Marriott: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm.
Mike Wallace: Really?
Willard Marriott: Uh-huh. I was in a very serious boat accident. Fire--boat was on fire, I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off of me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned.
Mike Wallace: And you believe it was the sacred undergarments.
Willard Marriott: I do. Particularly on my legs, because my pants were gone, but my undergarments were not singed. ("60 Minutes" program on the LDS Church. Aired on CBS TV, April 7, 1996)

Church presidents tell the faithful that the garments have magical properties:

“Temple garments afford protection. I am sure one could go to extreme in worshiping the cloth of which the garment is made, but one could also go to the other extreme. Though generally I think our protection is a mental, spiritual, moral one, yet I am convinced that there could be and undoubtedly have been many cases where there has been, through faith, an actual physical protection, so we must not minimize that possibility” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball).

For a garment made of cotton to protect people from fire and other physical dangers, it would defy physics, in other words the garments would take on a supernatural form, what some people would call magic. This was not made up by anti-mormons. This is a belief that comes from within the culture of Mormonism. Outsiders are simply learning about these beliefs and laughing. Mormons can either stand firm and confident behind the belief that garments offer supernatural protection from physical harm, or they can issue a statement, to be read to all members, that the garments are simply a reminder of the covenants made in the temple, and do not offer physical protection. They are trying to hold to a mmiddle ground where they tell members one thing, while trying to sound mainstream to the outside world. It never works.

[_The Mighty Builder]

You are correct DarkHelmet. It is the Mormon's who gave their underwear "magical" properties not the Gentiles. Simply reducing the numerous claimed properties of the underwear (protection from evil, protection from infidelity, protection from fire, protection from bullets, etc. as found in Mormon literature and talks) to "Magical" is equivalent as using the nom de plume Mormon, or LDS to identify Mormons instead of their official title.

[_Drifting]

Because ts not magic in any way and it's also not really underwear.

[_robuchan]

I'm no longer a believer, and it's still offensive to me. It's meant to offend, and it does.

[Guest]

I'm no longer a believer, and it's still offensive to me. It's meant to offend, and it does.

What do you find offensive about the term?

Do you think it fair of the rest of Christianity to the term 'whore of the earth' as found in LDS scripture?
How about 'suffering from same sex attraction'? Offensive or not?

The point I'm making is that Mormonism has no right whatsoever to take offence at derogatory terms when they (the Church) use terms that others find offensive.

[_zeezrom]

Underwear can be beautiful but I think when the term "magic underwear" is used, it doesn't inspire beauty in the mind but rather a sense of juvenile silliness. Magic can also be beautiful. I wish there was a way to make the garment sound gloriously beautiful to the ears of the outsider.

[_Drifting]

I have owned, in my lifetime, several pairs of what could be termed 'lucky pants'....

[_lulu]

When a presidential candidate has a magic Prince Albert, we can talk.

But until then, some things are just personal.

[_keithb]

The term is meant to offend (and does offend) in the same way that calling a Muslim person a "cloth head" is offensive. Technically, many believing Muslim women do wear shawls over their head as a sign of modesty (if I understand the religion correctly). However, nobody in Hollywood (ahem Cher) would dream of referring to this piece of clothing in an off-kilter term, like they do with the Mormons and the garments.

[Guest]

... and it's also not really underwear.

For example my wife wears it as housecoat.
And she wonders why I look at her morosely...


I don't know what does the mailman think - I am coward enough not to ask him.


Edited to fix a typo