Comments on: What Kind of “Protection” is the Garment?

By: John Lee

John Lee — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:23:43 +0000

I was just thinking about the garment and other parallels in the Bible. The Jews had the Mosaic law that required their priests to wear priestly garments. Adam had garments given to him to remind him of the priesthood.
Hugh B. Nibley states that Joseph’s coat of many colors was a garment of the priesthood. The New Testament talkes about being clothed in righteousness and keeping our garments spotless. It also talks about putting on he armor of God and Christ. Then I thought about the veil at the Jewish temple that was torn as Jesus Christ’s flesh was torn for us. Garments can represent covering our “nakedness” or shamefulness and the covering of the Atonement. It can represent a protection from temptation and spiritual darkness. Thus it is a spiritual protection.
As to physical, I dont understand why it couldn’t be as many other physical objects can provide spiritual protection like the Ark of the Covenant. I don’t think its bad to be odd-we are a peculiar people chosen to be separate from the blood of this generation or race of this generation. We are to maintain high standards with the help of Christ.

By: Michaela

Michaela — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:39:57 +0000

I’ve found that the garment protects me from heat in that it provides an extra layer of insulation that keeps the coolness from evaporated sweat in.

It protects me from the eyes of men, because it adds an extra opaqueness when I’m wearing a white shirt.

I know there are other ways too.

My dad told me about having acid spilled on him and it burned through his jeans but not his garments.

The protection of the garment is real.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:28:49 +0000

I don’t care if the garments (they are not “Gs”) are modernized.

But I do object if the motive is to “fit in with the cool kids.” That’s just petty.

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:26:01 +0000

You can always join the FLDS if you don’t like the modern LDS march towards the mainstream. BKP aside, it is far better to jump into inevitable reform than drag one’s feet and then reform when the pressure becomes unbearable. Youâ€™d think weâ€™d have learned our lesson on that score. In any event, itâ€™s silly to get upset about people teasing us for being odd, when we are indeed odd. Since the Gs and other things about the temple are symbolic, why not modernize the whole thing? It will happen eventually, why not now?

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:21:15 +0000

Steve,

When I think of my ultimate aspirations and dreams in life, “being mainstream” isn’t one of them.

By: cheryl

cheryl — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:38:41 +0000

Steve EM–

I think the whole point is NOT to be mainstream.

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:43:27 +0000

Seth,

I’m sure the FLDS w/ their long wrist-to-alkle one piece Gs feel that way about modern LDS Gs. My point is since the G is symbolic, why not move to something less cultish like a pendant akin to a cross that would make us more mainstream? In the end, it’s up to the Pres of the Church, and such a reform is only a matter of time, as are many other temple reforms.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Mon, 12 May 2008 03:06:12 +0000

I don’t know Steve. That sounds suspiciously like wishing your religion was comfortable enough that you could feel free to ignore it.

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Sun, 11 May 2008 01:06:54 +0000

I look forward to the day Gs are replaced with a simpler less cultish symbol. If we don’t want people mocking us we shouldn’t be so silly. While I think Maher is a sad atheist, there are plenty of LDS for whom his magic underpants joke is fitting.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:04:56 +0000

I knew someone first hand that was burned while working under a car. The burns were everywhere except under garmetns. But, I agree that if you’re living with the Spirit, you’re typically honoring your covenant to wear the garment, and the Spirit is what gives you protection.