A while back, there was a discussion about defiling garments. One commenter said that defiling your garments includes
Treating them in a casual manner such as:
– Throwing them on the floor
– Not retiring them when they are full of holes, tears or discolored
– Wearing them contrary to instructions
– Trying to adjust them to wear some clothing.
– Not wearing them, when you can.
– Letting them hang out your shorts on the bottom in public (Seen that one in Utah)
– Even discussing them in a very disrespectful manner
Do you wear your garments longer than you should. Is this a way of defiling them?
There is a saying that “Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.” Is getting the longest life out of a garment the sign of thrift?
[poll id = 480]
Is it ok to patch the holes? Are some of your garments gray, while others are bright white? if they are simply discolored, is it time to bleach them, or should you retire them? Are there other ways to defile the garment?
Wheat & Tares 
My garment bottoms always, always pick up the blue dye from my jeans on the inside leg (it happens with other trousers though to a far lesser extent). Whether this is the particular nature of my sweat, or simply down to friction walking/cycling I don’t know. Not a problem I’ve been able to solve. I’d get very few wears out of them if I retired them on grounds of discolouration, and I’ve no intention of not wearing jeans. It’s not a problem I’ve heard anyone else ever mention. I do tend to keep a few pairs separate that I don’t wear with jeans. But otherwise, it’s something I’ve learned not to worry about.
IMHO defiling garments is not a physical act, rather spiritual or emotional. Worn as underwear, a temple garment can never be considered holy, as an object, in the same way as a talit, for instance. For me, defiling my garments would entail disregarding the covenants they represent and not respecting them as an important symbol of my religion. I will wear them “throughout my life”, but only when (me and the Lord) feel it is appropriate and healthy to do so. I have no problems folding, tucking or adjusting them, because Beehive refuses to make garments that fit a 5’2″ tall woman.
“Defiling” is a strong word, but back when I wore garments I considered it disrespectful to wear them during exercise or without a layer between them and *ahem* Aunt Flo.
I don’t see it as disrespectful (but maybe tacky) for men to be…hanging out…but I am confused by the logic of those who see nothing wrong with that but condemn women for wearing clothes they are constantly adjusting. At least we’re TRYING to cover up!
Because I couldn’t try anything on before going through the temple, I ended up with a top two sizes too small on my wedding day. It photobombed my wedding pics even though my gown was cut much higher than tops I later found I could wear with better fitting garments. My sister-in-law found a beautiful dress with sheer sleeves that could be worn with garments because of the bodice’s wide shoulder — if only she were a mannequin and didn’t have to breathe. Her parents were chiding her throughout the photoshoot while my brother’s crewneck top peeked from over the top of his tux.
Thanks for the prompt, really need to do something about my holey garments. My covenants are important to me, but I really hate these things so I get a bit less than enthusiastic about buying an item I dislike so intensely. I have no desire to alter them, I’d just rather not have them ride up to my armpits when I’m sweating due to ordinary household tasks, or indeed bunched up in the groin. Ugh.
Over time my skin has become permanently blemished by them, and I’m sure any dermatologist would advise me not to wear them. My deal with myself now is that I don’t wear them at night, and I don’t feel the need to justify that to anyone, just me and God. I’m not able to sleep in them now anyhow as they have become so uncomfortable.I also find the very threadbare garments more comfortable as they get softer, which makes it difficult to step back to new ones.I find it an impossible dilemma and wonder how on earth those living in the tropics manage this, other than becoming white collar workers spending their days in air conditioned offices and employing others to do their yardwork.
not all men’s bottoms are the same length. you think that your shorts are long enough, because they fit when you tried them on, but this pair ends up being too long. Or they stretching through the day of doing something physical like moving furniture or even just standing and sitting. Or the elastic at the top stretches through the day and they ride lower without you realizing. Just saying that sometimes you have good intentions when leaving the house, and then end up “defiling” the garment.
I have always thought that defiling garments was due to sin. It was interesting to me that others think there are other definitions (such as those listed in the poll.)
Hedgehog: I also have had garments discolored by the dye from jeans. Here in AZ, not so much (jeans are too hot), but when I lived in a colder climate.
It is not possible as a woman to wear garments that never show – either through an armhole, hemline, waistline, the strange looking wrinkles under pants and shirts, or retucking of the tops into the bottoms throughout the day that must be done. It’s more like wearing very lightweight pajamas under my clothes than it is like wearing underwear. Garments weren’t made for women, and women weren’t made for garments. But I wear them as a reminder.
My daughter just coined the term “garmpit” last weekend to describe the sure fire way to tell if a woman is Mormon at Disneyland.
“Defile” isn’t the verb I would select for any of the choices, though there are several choices that I wouldn’t endorse as appropriate with respect to the garment.
Some of the choices could use a little more nuance. Are you adjusting them so they don’t hang out of your shorts? That works for me.
A while ago, I ran across an unopened package of garments from about 12 years ago. Out of curiosity, I compared them with a new current pair of the same size. The new garment comes a full two inches farther down the arm. Who decided that would be a good idea?
I wear shirts that reach virtually to my elbow, and sometimes my garments shift and stretch so that they hang an inch or two past my sleeves. Sometimes I just pull them back in and hope for the best. But my two-piece garments simply can’t be worn out of the package with an ordinary short-sleeve shirt. The size that fits comfortably around my torso also hangs down to the elbow. Snipping a couple inches off is far more respectful than sitting there looking ridiculous. Or are Mormons required to wear long sleeves everywhere for the rest of our lives?
On retiring garments, a quote from Jerry Seinfeld: “men wear their underwear until it absolutely disintegrates. Men hang on to underwear until, until each individual underwear molecule is so strained it can barely retain the properties of a solid. It actually becomes underwear vapor. W-we don’t even throw it out, we just open a window and it goes out like dandelion spoors. That’s how men throw out underwear we just go (blows on the mic) and it’s gone”.
Garments used to go to ankles and wrists. Does it bother anyone else that this was changed? Why was it changed?
There are so many scriptures about the church, and God, not fearing man. Yet, garments were adjusted. Recently, the church saying it is ok to be for gay marriage. Polygamy…blacks receiving the priesthood…on and on. Do these changes imply the church fearing society?
No one can define sacred in a meaningful non circular non mental gymnastics way. It is typically used to magically proclaim something largely unexplainable to be beyond reproch. Defiling something sacred is simply to disrespect something that has been magically placed beyond reproach. These mind games and the hairshirt aspect of the unusual underware called garmemts are used to get you to take your covenants more seriously.
They are a token, not an idol to be worshiped. While I have no problem respecting what they represent, they are underwear after all…
“Wearing them contrary to instructions” What exactly does this mean? Wearing them in public with nothing over them?
Wearing them contrary to instructions is a tricky one because as far as I know, the actual instructions for wearing garments aren’t codified anywhere. They aren’t discussed in the temple, they aren’t available in the CHI (at least the version regular people like you and me don’t have access to) and while the TR interview question mentions not taking them off for yard work, it still leaves a LOT to be desired.
Weird that in a church of ongoing modern-day revelation, useful information about the underwear we wear on a daily basis is so hard to come by.
I think “contrary to instructions” includes pinning them to outer clothes so they don’t show. I think the reason is that if you have to do that, you shouldn’t be wearing the “immodest” clothing. You’re not supposed to let them hang out of shorts either, but of course people break that rule all the time and this would be considered “contrary to instructions.”
I’ve also noticed that recent garments have longer sleeves that hang out of t-shirts, so that seems to be a design problem.
I used to think that to comply with the temple’s instructions to wear my priesthood garment both night and day that I had to wear two sets of clothing for the rest of my life: normal, everyday garments on-top-of the purchased priesthood garments.
For the last couple years though, for any clothes that I typically wear as a single layer [i.e., not stuff like dress shirts or jackets] I’ve converted the normal, everyday clothing into priesthood clothing [“garments”] by cutting and sewing in the marks of the holy priesthood. I later found that this practice is more in line with what was done by early LDS. The minutes from an October 1870 meeting in Salt Lake reveal that:
In other words, all that seems to matter is that the clothing you wear be priesthood clothing [have the marks of the holy priesthood in them], not necessarily that you wear the garment as underwear.
The 2011 CHI states that:
The temple recommend interview question asks:
Though church leaders may be tempted to read extra material to you after the temple recommend interview and though the CHI goes on to expound for a paragraph with extra instructions — none of that is contained in the temple endowment, and therefore can be ignored when any LDS is addressing their personal compliance with their temple covenants.
To me, an initiated LDS has covenanted to wear priesthood clothing for the remainder of their mortal life. However, no one has covenanted to wear the priesthood clothing that is sold by Distribution Services — nor has any one covenanted to hide their priesthood clothing from the eyes of others by wearing normal, everyday clothing on top of them. That’s not to say that if wearing two sets of clothing [normal on-top-of priesthood] all the time works for you and the ones sold by the Distribution Centers fit you comfortably that you should still make your own. People are free to continue to wear priesthood garments as under-clothing and utilize that resource to buy them because that still technically fulfills the vow to wear priesthood clothing throughout your life [albeit a strange way to do it].
But, in my experience, the sizes and fabrics do not fit everyone well and do not always conform to the local environment or culture. If the latter is the case, then I think it’s better for people to stop subjecting themselves to poor fitting clothing and the uncomfortableness of trying to wear two sets of clothing all the time — and certainly don’t cease from wearing priesthood clothing altogether because the covenant we’ve made to do so is important.
At my church we all discuss our underwear.
(Spoken in Sarah Palin’s “I can see Russia from my house” voice.)
When a man inquires about my LDS temple garments, I sometimes respond in an imitation of the late Mel Blanc (doing Bugs Bunny): “Gee, Fella, I didn’t know ya cared!!”.
I have to remind myself constantly to not let my garments get in a disreputable condition, if only to show respect for what they SYMBOLIZE. As Jeff pointed out, it’s what they represent, and they are UNDERWEAR. I’m one that in my high school football days wore the same practice undershirt (and that’s before joining the Church) and vowed to NOT launder it until we won a game. Didn’t help my teammates any, for sure. I had opportunity to make good when I was on short-line defense (I started at center, but was a ‘nose guard’ on certain defensive plays) the other team had made a goal-line stand on us and had the ball on their two-yard line with a minute and a half to go. They fumbled on their first play and I fell on the ball in the end zone. After having been smashed into the end zone mud (being Central Florida in November, it was rainy and cold) I still had the ball, though I was ‘seeing stars’. So the shirt was placed by my mother in the washing machine along with other whites, and it came out in shreds. Yes, we’d won the game (26-24), so we didn’t go winless that year.
Justin, that’s interesting but can you tell me when in the endowment a member covenants to wear garments–however you define “PH garment?”
I stopped wearing garments several years ago when the concept quit making sense to me and after 35 years of faithful wear. I decided I wasn’t going to continue being uncomfortable just to keep everyone around me happy. I’ve not experienced any backlash, to my knowledge–and my husband is a former bishop in the ward.
That said, I still purchase garments for family members. I replace my husband’s every six months; can’t stand the sweat stains and the greying. I replace other family members’ when I happen to fold laundry at their house and for the same reason. Young couples don’t have extra funds for garments, really. Garments can’t be bleached; they’re actually dyed white so bleaching achieves nothing.
Something that soaks up urine and collects fecal matter can hardly be referred to as “holy.”
When you accept the garment from the temple worker and have it authorized by them for your use, you are instructed that:
By accepting that authorized garment and then continuing through the rest of the endowment proper [for which wearing authorized priesthood clothing is a prerequisite], you consent to this injunction to wear priesthood clothing throughout your life.
That means that, so long as you’re choosing to cover your nakedness during your lifetime, you must do so with priesthood garments.
Now if you choose to go-on and cover those coverings with a set of typical, everyday clothing, then you’re free to give that a shot [I personally have found it more comfortable to keep the injunction when I’m not trying to wear two articles of clothing at the same time]. You’re also certainly free to change your mind about how willing you were to accept that injunction after-the-fact — but you did go through the whole ceremony by your own free-will and choice.
Also,
That’s a bit snide, isn’t it? We are something that produce urine and fecal matter. Is it possible for us to ever be considered “holy”? What about Jesus? Did His natural excretions “defile” Him, in your opinion?
Thank you Justin. I think I’ve read some of your writings on the topic in other places. Interesting way to think about it even though I disagree with your interpretation.
I have purchased commercial t-shirts and put in the iron-on ph markings. The quality is better. I realize your solution is different, adding marks on outer clothing.
I’ve heard of other people who’ve gone with iron-ons on the inside — whatever works for you.
#20 – In the same discussion about what ‘defiles a man’, the Savior Himself mentioned normal digestion (with attendant elimination) in Matthew 15:15-16. So yes, normal ‘precious bodily fluids’ will in the normal course of things ‘contaminate’ a temple garment, and after time and many washings there’s only so much that can be done, so it’s time to get out the scissors, cut out the marks, and, voila! Car polishing rag!
Just imagine if the fictional Gen. Ripper (from “Dr Strangelove”) had been not only LDS, but IAW with his fanatical character, one of those types that wouldn’t completely take his garment off even in the ‘act of love’ (while still withholding his ‘essence’).
If that is an accurate list of actions that defile holy garments, perhaps our holy garments shouldn’t be underwear, shouldn’t be mandated to be worn nearly always, and shouldn’t be so expensive to replace. Excessive wear and tear is practically inevitable under present circumstances.