So, what kind of underwear are you wearing?
Has anyone ever asked you that before? Was it your spouse? Was it a friend? An associate? How about a complete stranger? If it was someone other than your spouse did you tell that person how inappropriate the inquiry was? I think everyone would agree that asking other people about their underwear is probably inappropriate – that kind of information is personal, private, and frankly nobody’s business but your own. Please nod your head yes.
While most people agree that asking about someone else’s underwear is inappropriate, active temple-attending members of the Church are asked specifically about their underwear every two years as part of an interview to determine worthiness to participate in the temple. Here is exactly what they are asked:
- Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
- Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?
Now, because those two questions are put together, we often just assume that at some point we have covenanted to wear the garment, but the second question actually gets it right – it states that we are instructed. Specifically, during the temple endowment members are instructed to wear the garment “throughout your life.” There are absolutely no covenants made regarding the garment and there is nothing said in the temple about wearing the garment both day and night.
And does anyone else think that second question is kind of weird? How about if we “un-church” it a bit: Do you wear this kind of underwear? Do you wear it all day and night? Are you wearing this underwear right now?
Now, after those questions have been asked and answered, the interviewer then reads out loud this part of the Church handbook:
The first issue I have with this is the part that says “Church members…have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment.” Again, there is no covenant or obligation to wear the garment; we are instructed to wear them.
I find this part problematic as well:
“Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.”
In the temple we are simply instructed to wear the garment with no mention of day and night. But that passage is so specific that there is hardly room for personal choice, agency, or interpretation, which sort of contradicts the concluding sentence: “Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment.” Mixed messages or what? For the record, that concluding sentence is by far the best sentence out of the entire segment, but how many people feel like they can exercise any discretion after those incredibly detailed instructions?
So, what does the temple instruction of wearing the garment “throughout your life” even mean? Well, it could mean different things to different people. For some it means to wear them both day and night, but for others it might not. Do you plan to wear shoes throughout your life? Do you wear shoes in bed? In the summertime do you wear sandals instead of shoes? When it’s cold do you wear boots? I have crazy friends that only wear shoes when absolutely necessary, like at church – crazy hippies! Again this statement fits perfectly: “Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment.” It’s personal and it should be up to you.
The new 2013 edition of the scriptures is out and available digitally. The big difference between the old and new scriptures is the chapter headings. When you compare the new chapter headings to the old ones it’s obvious that the interpretation of the chapters was removed leaving basically just the framework of the story. This leaves the scriptures much more open to interpretation. It is the same reason why musicians often don’t reveal exactly what a song is about – they know that the song could mean something different to each of their fans and by leaving it open to interpretation they can appeal to more people. A musician knows that the fan-song connection is the most sacred connection there is in music.
So for your next temple recommend interview, shake things up a little! You can say, “Are you asking me about my underwear?” Then you can say, ” Yes, I plan on wearing them throughout my life.”
Added random bonus!! Temple Recommend questions factoids!
From 1857:
Have you committed murder by shedding innocent blood, or consenting thereto?
Have you betrayed your brethren or sisters in anything?
Have you committed adultery, by having any connection with a woman that was not your wife, or a man that was not your husband?
Have you taken and made use of property not your own, without the consent of the owner?
Have you cut hay where you had no right to, or turned your animals into another person’s grain or field, without his knowledge and consent?
Have you lied about or maliciously misrepresented any person or thing?
Have you borrowed anything that you have not returned, or paid for?
Have you borne false witness against your neighbor?
Have you taken the name of Deity in vain?
Have you coveted anything not your own?
Have you been intoxicated with strong drink?
Have you found lost property and not returned it to the owner, or used all diligence to do so?
Have you branded an animal that you did not know to be your own?
Have you taken another’s horse or mule from the range and rode it, without the owner’s consent?
Have you fulfilled your promises in paying your debts, or run into debt without prospect of paying?
Have you taken water to irrigate with, when it belonged to another person at the time you used it?
Do you pay your tithing promptly?
Do you teach your family the gospel of salvation?
Do you speak against your brethren, or against any principle taught in the Bible, Book of Mormon, book of Doctrine and Covenants, revelations given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and the Presidency of the Church as now organized?
Do you pray in your family night and morning and attend to secret prayer?
Do you wash your body and have your family do so, as often as health and cleanliness require and circumstances will permit?
Do you labor six days and rest, or go to the house of worship, on the seventh?
Do you preside over your household as a servant of God, and is your family subject to you?
Have you labored diligently and earned faithfully the wages paid you by your employers?
Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?
Have you taken up and converted any stray animal to your own use, or in any manner appropriated one to your benefit, without accounting therefore to the proper authorities?
From 1941:
This was a form that was filled out and signed:
1. Are you morally clean and fit to enter the temple? ____ Yes____ No
2. Will and do you sustain the General Authorities of the Church and will you live in accordance with the accepted rules and doctrines of the Church?____ Yes____ No
3. Are you a full tithe payer?____ Yes____ No
3a. Are you a part tithe payer? ____Yes ____No
3b. Are you exempt from paying tithes? ____Yes ____No
4. Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?____Yes _____ No
5.Do you wear the regulation garments?____ Yes____No
6. Will you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church, to attend your sacrament, priesthood and other meetings, and to obey the rules, laws and commandments of the Gospel? ____Yes ____No
7. Have you ever been denied a recommend to any temple? ____ Yes ____ No
If so, please indicate: (name of Bishop, Ward, Stake and Date)
(Signed) ………………………………..
From 1982:
This letter came down from the brethren instructing that the interviewer must ask the candidate (if married), if that person practiced “unnatural, impure or unholy practices”,which “The First Presidency has interpreted as oral sex”. This caused such a raucous that it was quickly removed. Here is said letter:
Pablo
Born and raised in Northern California, Pablo received his education at Ricks College and BYU with a BA in Spanish, minor in PE Coaching. Pablo served his LDS mission during the years 94-96 in Rosario, Argentina. He now runs a skate shop and batting cages in Orem, UT. He's married and has 4 boys.
All posts by Pablo
Good post. I almost can’t even discuss this topic anymore because of the angst surrounding it for me. Since receiving my endowment over 10 years ago I have been subject to a lot of criticism over the way I wear my garment. From whether or not to tuck the top in to the bottom, bra over or under, wearing underwear underneath them during my monthly cycle, removing them while training for a marathon and running in races, stacking them on the floor while folding them, how soon to put them back on after sexual relations, and on and on and from various family members and ecclesiastical leaders, and sometimes even a random nosy ward member. In my opinion the specifics wearing the garment should be left up to the individual and personal revelation. Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves instead of constantly trying to police everyone’s behavior.
Ah! Scary!!! Yes teach them correct principles and get out of my business!!
We could do with getting back to the Mormon Motto of ‘mind your own business’
http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/26.4HicksMinding-a8ba1724-2dad-469d-afd9-39ce671ad2fb.pdf
I agree that general members need to back off and stop judging others for not wearing the garment as they interpret it should be. Less judging of others is sorely needed. Having said that, I have no problem with my ecclesiastical leader asking me about my underwear in a private interview to enter the temple. I don’t think you can “un church” the topic in this situation because the garment is an outward reminder of the covenants we make, and as a result is directly tied to church issues. It’s not normal underwear.
And to Bad Wolf, one way to shut up the judgmental fools who gripe about you taking your garments off for exercising or running a marathon is to use this line that I love: “To me the garment is so sacred that I don’t wish to defile it with my gross, nasty sweat as I am exercising. I prefer to treat it with more respect.” That usually puts them in their self righteous place and shuts them up.
Loved this 🙂 Made me smile and also wonder about how things got to be the way they are regarding the garments and the requirements to report how we are actually wearing/using them. Been a member for 45 years and I agree that we don’t covenant to wear them (there is no language used during the the temple experience about covenanting on how we are going to wear them) – we are instructed on how to wear them.
Loved the additional recommend questions/facts! I’m glad we aren’t asked about our showering habits anymore…. and I can honestly say I have not taken a horse or mule out for ride without asking for permission anytime lately.
I know this will come off as much harsher than if we were face to face, but this sounds to me like you are casting a simple question about weather you have done what you have been asked to do as some kind of pervy fetish, then go out of your way to try and find a loophole in the wording to try and nullify your obligations as much as possible.
Split hairs over words all you want, but if you think that there is some kind of difference between God instructing you to do something and God commanding you to do something you are quite wrong. And if you think you are not under a covenant to wear them as instructed you have not been paying attention in the temple.
Instead of looking for how much you can get away with, try seeing just how good you can really be. Recognize that the Lord’s anointed has asked you to do this and you are accountable to God for it. If you need to be commanded in every detail of it then what kind of servant are you? You know what the expectation is, don’t look for ways to justify your own will rather than submit to God’s.
I think it’s valid to say that it is none of any other member’s business how or even if you wear them, but you are obligated to account to the Lord through his servants if you are obedient or not. If you remove them, it needs to be for a valid reason you feel God would approve of, not simply for the sake of your own comfort. If you understand what they are for and why they are so important you will not be looking for excuses to ditch them.
If that isn’t how you intended your post to be taken, then sorry, but that is what it comes across as to me so that is what I respond to. ‘Soft apostacy’ really annoys me.
My point is this – all that needs to be said about the wearing of the garment: “Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment”
We don’t covenant to wear them. Yes we are instructed – and we are instructed to wear them throughout our life. It is a personal just like the quote above states. Do we really need to be commanded in all things?
Members also need to accept guidance and direction from the Lord when it comes through Priesthood channels. I think the principle is very clear, garments should only be removed when engaging in an activity that requires them to be removed, and you should not seek to delay or avoid putting them back on after. You have taken on an obligation to do so in the temple.
I’m just glad you or I weren’t around in 1986 for you to call me out on my “soft apostasy” for practicing “unnatural, impure and unholy practices” as mentioned in the above letter.
You mis-characterize both the content and nature of the letter. Priesthood leader were not told they ‘must’ ask about any specific sexual act, quite the opposite in fact. And ‘has interpreted’ is a long, long, long way off from being anything akin to a command or covenant or doctrine or part of an ordinance.
I hope I’m wrong, but the more I read from you, the more it sounds like a wolf in sheep’s clothing speaking.
Paul – the point of the letter is to address that things change in the interview and in the handbook. This part of the interview was quickly removed, because members were engaging in oral sex and liked it and didn’t want to stop doing it. They were essentially saying, stay out of my bedroom, that is my business. Leadership took note.
Again there is no covenant made for the garment. The instructions are to wear it throughout your life. The handbook and interview say something very different which leads little to choice, but it ends in saying that we should seek personal guidance. Is that a mixed message to you?
And please try to attack the idea, not the person giving the idea, makes for much better conversation.
I’m not for sure which part of the letter you read, Paul, when you state “Priesthood leader were not told they ‘must’ ask about any specific sexual act, quite the opposite in fact.” It very specifically states after “we urge you to review your interviewing practices critically and conform then where necessary to the suggested procedures outlined above.” We urge you to conform is Mormon speak for “the prophet has spoken and you are to follow.”
Garrett,
Come on man…Seriously? Have you ever been asked a question like that. Dude, dude, dude.
I was a young married woman in 1982 and was informed that it was an immoral unholy and impure practice and asked point blank if my husband and I were participating in oral sex. I was mortified. Deeply.
I’m so glad that has changed!!!!
Paul Barker is right. There is no covenant in the temple to wear the garment. Only an “instruction” to “wear it throughout your life.” Considering Joseph Smith wasn’t wearing his on the day he died because it was too hot, perhaps it would be best to go through and carefully review the ceremony yourself before accusing people of not paying attention.
And no, that is not “splitting hairs.” The places in the temple where we make covenants are very clear and very easy to pick out, and all involve some sort of verbal agreement. There are no verbal agreements or covenant making in the entire Initiatory ceremony. The whole thing is one big blessing with a few instructions attached.
Alison Udall,
Alison, agreed that we dont covenant but its amazing how many arguments I’ve had with members who tell me its implied. temple covenants are not “implied.” I do have a letter from Pres. Uchtdorf from two years ago where he reiterates that we made a covenant to wear them. The letter is in my Bishop’s possession lest I share it over the Internet.
Michael Barker,
Mike, i wasnt saying ive been asked that question. Paul..
Not your brother paul….made a comment that leaders didn’t have to ask that. I was stating that at the time, based on how it was worded in the letter, the leaders of the church were stating that yes the leaders needed to ask that question. I know it has changed….
It got confusing with the two Pauls
My bad. Too many Pauls. That is why we call Paul Barker, Tio Pablo in our house.
At my last temple recommend interview, a member of my stake presidency actually said, “the law of chastity mainly deals with chastity before marriage and fidelity after marriage, but it also encompasses other things. Do you improperly touch yourself or others?” I’m really not sure what all he was getting at. I’m just glad it’s always proper when I touch myself.
All kidding aside, I’m dreading November when my recommend expires. If he says it again, I’m going to stop the interview, ask for the stake pres and handbook of instructions. Should I really have to deal with this what I think is abuse? It absolutely confirms my resolution to NEVER allow my children to be alone in any interview.
Wow – I hope that doesn’t happen and good idea to be with your kids for interviews.
There are actually instructions that those giving recommend interviews are NOT to add anything additional to the interview. The copy of the most recent letter I’ve seen with that instruction is 2010 I believe.
I’ve had a big struggle with this in the last year. I have fibromyalgia and sometimes my skin is so insanely sensitive.
You know that feeling you get in your skin when you have the flu? And you just wish you could hover in mid air so nothing was touching your feverish sensitive skin?
I have that nearly all the time in varying degrees. I deal with it in the day but on the nights when it’s really bad. I take my garments off and go to sleep.
The first time I did it I couldn’t sleep. I was just lying in bed. I could not get comfortable. The seams on the garments felt like fire on my skin. I might as well sleep with sandpaper in bits. I can’t tell you how many nights I’ve suffered though that and tried to sleep anyway. And finally one night I say to myself – this is insane. There is no way that Heavenly Father intends for me to be miserable!
So I say a little prayer – I’m going to take these off and lay back down. Give me a wave of guilt or something if it’s wrong, k? I just want some sleep…
I was asleep in minutes. Score.
I don’t go around telling people that because can you imagine the judgment? (And here I am sharing it on the internet. HA!)
But there it is. And I don’t think my Heavenly Parents care one wit if on the days when my skin is really bad – I don’t sleep in them.
How’s that for a conversation about my underwear? Heh.
I really don’t care how much other people wear their garments. It’s none of my business. As for myself, I don’t see much of a difference between an “instruction” from the Lord and a “commandment” from the Lord. If the Lord instructs me in the Temple to wear my garments, and the First Presidency feels it is so important that it is part of the Temple Recommend Interview, then it doesn’t take an intellectual leap to come to the conclusion that the Lord wants me to wear them night and day. Whether the Lord “commands” it or “instructs” it or even “just really really wants me to”, doesn’t make much difference to me. I trust His judgment, even if I don’t totally understand it.
If other people see that different than I do, that’s fine with me. I like the idea of teaching people correct principles and then letting them work out their salvation.
Exactly – teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. Rob your interpretation is fine, I just wanted to make a point that there should be room for interpretation. Thanks for your comment!
I like this discussion. As a total heathen I routinely wear just my shorts in and outside my home. Comfort, especially in the summer is important. Also as a student of evolutionary biology I like what the sun does for my health. Studies show that 20 k Units of vitamin D are made in our skin in less than a hour of sun exposure during the middle of the day. There are three requirements for life, light, water, and magnetism. Our skin develops from the same neural precursor tissue as our brain and nervous system. We as scientists are just beginning to understand what the sun provides to us in the form of electrons and photons. Quantum physics applied to biology is a hot area of research. We can ignore our evolutionary biology at our own peril. For millions of years we evolved in the sunlight, sleeping on the ground, and eating seafood from the ocean….
Be careful with the whole touching thing here. We all know, orgasums are not for women.
What does this even mean??
What’s a clitorus for, if not pleasure?
This interview question makes me extremely uncomfortable. I am a strong believer in the concept that my relationship with the Lord is just that…between me and Him. I believe that He understands my situation and allows for individual choices in my behavior. I am married to a nonmember who, needless to say, is not a fan of my underwear. As such, I find that there are times when I need to compromise. I do not wear the garments both day and night, (TMI alert) because I do not wear *anything* to bed. And yet I answer this interview question in the affirmative, because I am comfortable knowing I wear the garments when it is reasonable to do so. I do not want my husband to resent my religious beliefs, or resent them to the point that it damages our relationship. Some have told me that I am choosing man over God, but that is a discussion for another time. My point is that I do believe in individual discretion, and I don’t always trust that my church leaders will see eye-to-eye with me on this. However, in the end I have my Lord to answer to, and I feel confident that He supports me in this.
Nobody’s business what kind of under wear I choose to wear, or if I wear any.
Underwear is for protecting clothing from body oils and scurf, from urine dribbles, to protect the skin from rough fabrics and seams, and for added insulation in cold weather.
Your whole religion is based on a fictional novel written in the early 1800s, with King James Bible quotes and misquotes.
The alleged archaeology of North America of the Book of Mormon does not exist.
Did you see the Church is no surveying the members about garments? You can comment on each piece. https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback
Men may tell me how to wear my underwear when they cease being male and inhabit female bodies of their own. Until that time, they have no idea of what they are talking about with regard to women’s underwear. Do I know how to manage testicles and their associated bits? No, I do not. Neither is there a man alive who understands what it’s like to live with my bits.
Gentlemen: do not presume that you understand women’s bodies, or that any associated information, even from on high, which has passed through your personal brain filter is accurate.