Talk:Temple garment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Moving Sections

I think we should switch the sacred nature section and the unauthorized use of the garments. The sacred nature section is more informative of what the garments. Whereas the unauthorized use is more a history. I think unfamiliar people would understand the controversy a lot better if they had more of a background in why they are so important to mormons. 67.177.35.5 06:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good comment; go ahead and be bold next time. If you think there may be disagreement explain your edit here. Continued good ideas! Storm Rider 06:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Two Minor Changes

I just made two minor changes and I have recomendations for more. First, I removed the "irreverant fashion" part. Wether something is irreverant or not depends on what someone reveres. I don't think my change to "a manner contrary to accepted LDS practice." is necessarily the best way to put it but it was all I could think of. Second, I removed the phrase "artistic", quotation marks included, in refferance to the pictures on display in the art museum. That seemed VERY pov to me without adding anything to the article.

And a general comment, I think the long quote about the pastor is out of place. There has to be a better way of summing up the sacred nature of the garment. I'll wait for some discussion before removing it(or not removing it if someone can convince me why I should not).Dklangen 09:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You've been editing as a registered user for about nine hours now? Welcome aboard. Glad to have you around and hope you stick around. For the purposes of responding, I'm going to assume by "pastor" you mean "chaplain" - which are very different positions and responsibilities from a religious point of view.

First of all, There is no need to remove or censor or edit material on Wikipedia - especially because there is no space constraints on the Wiki. We can include multiple quotes to illustrate the same point. We don't remove anything unless it is irrelevant to the article or non-factually correct or not NPOV. There is no need for that. In addition multiple examples can better clarify for readers what is meant. This is one reason why images and descriptions are often included in Wikipedia articles.

Second, the quote is taken from a sort of quasi-official statement by LDS Church leaders about the Garment, because it is published by the Church. As it reflects current LDS church teachings from an official standpoint, it has validity to be used to explain to others why Garments are sacred, etc. I agree that there may be a better way to "sum up" the sacred nature of the garment, and it could be added in, but not at the expense of a quote from an official temple preparation guide. There are more reasons why the quote should stay, however, this is a good enough explanation for now.

Finally, pictures of people having various forms of sex or sexual exhibition wearing (or partially wearing) sacred vestitures (especially homosexual forms of sex when the vestments represent covenants including chasity) would be considered "irreverant" by most communities, regardless of religious bias. However, as most people have not seen the pictures, I think that your edit was appropriate.

Your NPOV clean up is much appreciated. It has needed to be done and I'm not sure how other editors missed it. -Visorstuff 19:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

McKay Edits

I agree with your revert to include the edit, Storm Rider. However, there is no reference for that quote, like the others in the article. Therefore, I can understand why the anon saw it as suspect. A reference needs to be incldued or deleted. While McKay could have said that in the Temple, if it is not publicly available, we should reconsider including as it is unattributable. Can you or Cogden find the source, as I'm unfamiliar with it? -Visorstuff 16:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The explanation of the marks is attributed to David O. McKay here (footnote 1), but it doesn't have a specific citation. I assume the source for that bit of information would be David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness (Signature, 2002), but I don't have access to that book. COGDEN 01:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is an uncomfortable situation to be in; I would prefer that the quote not be in the article, but I don't feel it appropriate to be the one to delete. Worse, I restore a quote that I can't find a supporting document. I do not have access to the book COGDEN mentions. I have done a search on GospeLink 2001, but nothing comes up for any of the major phrases or words. I do agree that without a it being attributed, it should be deleted with the confidence that we are not being overly protective of things valued as highly sacred by the LDS people. Storm Rider 04:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've found that very little in the church is done by one man. although the changes can be attribted to McKay, that is like saying the footnotes in the current standard works are all president monson's work. As the church runs by comittee and there is no current citable source, let's remove for now - until it is properly atttributed. I've preserved the text here until we can find a citable source. Other readers - please do not see this as an attempt of censorship, because we find nothing in the below that is not widely known in the LDS Church and/or masonic circles. Rather, it attributes an entire paragraph to something that is un-attributable per initial guidelines of the page and common sense. -Visorstuff 13:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast is the "mark of the square" (similar to the Masonic sign of the square). According to an interpretation by David O. McKay that was added to the instructional portion of the Endowment in the 1930s, the mark represents "exactness and honor" in keeping the commandments and covenants of God. The V-shaped symbol on the left breast is the "mark of the compass" (similar to the Masonic sign of the compass). This mark, according to McKay, symbolizes "an undeviating course leading to eternal life; a constant reminder that desires, appetites, and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set; and that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole.". The garment also contains horizontal lines at the navel and at the knee. The "navel mark", according to McKay, represents "the need of constant nourishment to body and spirit", and the "knee mark" suggests "that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ".

You're probably right that it was done by a committee. I suspect what happened was that in the 1930s, David O. McKay was chosen to lead a committee to make the endowment more user-friendly. I found a review of Buerger's book by Daniel W. Bachman, which states: "David O. McKay, we learn, first explained the symbolism associated with the temple clothing by faithful Latter-day Saints." So, I think Buerger is definitely the source of this information. Maybe I'll try to get ahold of a copy of that book some time and see what it actually says. COGDEN 18:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I Googled for about an hour and a half trying to find something on the net, but I came up with zero. Although there is extensive information on the temple ceremony in detail, none of it attributed the actual words of the ceremony to an individual. Even the 1984 and 90's changes were unattributed. I agree that the language should have been removed until we can find an appropriate source. Storm Rider 19:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Question: What is the ebay policy, if unrelated to religious beliefs? unsigned 198.166.50.241

As a member of the LDS faith, I agree that showing images or describing the temple garments on Wikipedia is innapropriate and offensive. I feel that when members any faith respectfully request that material they deem sacred not be posted, this should be taken into serious consideration.

Don't look then :-)

I'm LDS, and I personally think that either an illustration or a photograph of new garment should be shown, although not being worn on an person's body. I'm also a Mason, and I wanted to point out in reference to the above thread that comment in the thread above, stating referring to 'the "mark of the square" (similar to the Masonic sign of the square)' and 'the "mark of the compass" (similar to the Masonic sign of the compass)' is a nonsensical item. From every source I can find, the common usage from 1840's until today in Masonry would refer to them as "The Square and Compasses" (not compass, and no "sign of the"), and in Masonry they are quite real -- a metal square, and set of metal compasses. Note the word is compasses, not compass, and is indicated clearly as such in the ritual of many jurisdictions. The Latter-day Saint usage does include the word mark, and refers to them as "the mark of the square", and "the mark of the compass". Note the term compasses is not used. I have heard a rumor that at one point early in Church history the marks were physically cut into the garments at the time they were given to the recipient, possibly drawing a few drops of blood and making the markings appear red. The Masonic Square and Compasses were also featured on an architectural drawing of the spire of the Nauvoo Temple, where they were oriented in a reversed situation from the standard Masonic usage, with the compasses opening up to the heavens rather than down towards the ground. I hope these comments will help someone somewhere :)

Age?

About what age do members begin wearing the garments? I wasn't able to figure out from the article, so maybe that should be included also? cøøkiə Ξ _(talk) 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does say adult members, which is accurate. The ritual usually takes place between ages 18 and 24, and often just before marriage or a mission. These should be covered more in the temple or endowment articles than in this article. It should be made clear that it is common for adult members to wear garments. It sometimes reads like there is a special class of Mormons who are only allowed to wear them, similar to priests and nuns. Bytebear 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's not really a special class, but it is just those who are able to get and keep a temple recommend, which would be a minority of practicing LDS members. Friday (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The tone of your statement is slightly off, Friday, it is not something you "get", but something desired for some members. Though all are encouraged to serve in the temple, a significant minority of Latter-day Saints obtain a recommend and continue throughout their lives to serve in the temple. One's behavior is closely linked to one's desire. In addition, a temple recommend holder should not be viewed as perfect; far from it. Rather, their behavior should be more in the perspective of the requirements of partaking the Sacrament; we must be willing to take upon us the name of Christ. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the garment is that it is a symbol of a covenant that you make with God - analogous to circumsion being the symbol of the covenant Abraham (and the Isrealites) made with God. As such, once you have made that covenant, regardless of whether you area current temple recommend holder or not, members will still wear the garment to remind them of the covenant - if they still honor it - even if they have other issues - and some will stop wearing the garment for their various reasons. --Trödel 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

References

This article needs more references. The statement "... incited considerable protest by college students who were returned missionaries." is a good example of bad writing. How do you know they were returned missionaries? Were they even students? Who made this claim? Bytebear 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kaccha

Kaccha seems appropriate to me as a see-also, being another religious undergarment. However there's been edit warring over the inclusion of this. It was removed once with an edit summary of "categories take care of this" but I don't see how this is true. It was removed again with an edit summary of "list all religious gaments or none to keep NPOV. if there is a particular similarity, it should be discussed in the text, not just plunked in a see also" which doesn't make sense to me either. Sure, it could be compared in the text, but a see-also is sometimes a precursor to that. I don't see the harm in this being a see-also. The similiarity is that they're religious undergarments - the only two religious undergarments we have articles on, as far as I can tell. Friday (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there are Jewish religious undergarments too, just no article. Jus because an article hasn't been written yet doesn't mean that others don't exist. But, here is what you are missing, the category lists everything and this is NPOV, and if you discuss it in the text, you will already have wikilinked to it. MOS says you don't put things in the See Also section that are previously wikilinked in the article. (Not to mention the whole "See also sections shouldn't exist at all camp") pschemp | talk 16:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a see also is a crude way of linking to another article. But does this mean a see-also is always worse than no link at all? As probably the most similiar thing to a temple garment that we have an article on, it seems relevant to me. Friday (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so rather than take the lazy approach, someone can incorporate the info into the text. There is no rush, this is a wiki. We will live while waiting for the right thing to be done. An incorrect action when the right thing can be done easily is not a good thing. pschemp | talk 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What you've said makes no sense to me - the "see also" was a step in the right direction. If it's there, surely there's a better chance someone will work it into the article. Perfection is not required, articles can improve a little bit at a time. Friday (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why take a baby step when you can just do it right the first time? Just put it in the text to begin with. What doesn't make sense about that? It doesn't require an expert to do that, you could do it yourself as it would require about one sentence, then there is better chance someone will expand it. There is no point putting it in the see also, when it makes more sense elsewhere. (I won't because I still think its not relevant, but if it goes in the text, I won't complain.) pschemp | talk 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Because with baby steps, it will eventually be right Abeo Paliurus 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing it right the first time makes much more sense!pschemp | talk 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a close call. I tend to agree with Friday that undergarment religious clothing is unique enough to put in the see also section. But don't really care that much either way, so I'll look to the MoS for guidance --Trödel 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't much help:

"Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article."

I doubt the Kaccha would be linked from the article - so it makes sense to put it here. I tend to think that Categories should be used for broad subject areas, and a category with 3-5 articles in it doesn't make sense - where adding the 3 or for links to other religious undergarments does. But wouldn't oppose using Category:Religious undergarments or something like that for the same purpose. --Trödel 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the category and its somewhat mixed up with vestements and more generic religious garments all together. It could probably use some cleanup. For the record, the original inserter is ok with the category solution (see my talk.) I really prefer the category solution since it is more inclusive. If a topic is relevent enough to be included, you should be able to do it within the text. There is a whole school of thought here on Wikipedia that a See Also section should never be in any article. pschemp | talk 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like concensus - wish it could always be that easy :) --Trödel 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)