Talk:Temple garment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Mormon fundamentalism?[edit]

I don't get it, it says "Today, the temple garment is worn primarily by members of LDS Church and by members of some Mormon fundamentalist churches" What is the point of the wording here? Mormon is the colloquial name for adherents of the LDS Church. To then use the colloquial to refer to Mormon fundamentalists makes no sense. It is like saying "the temple garment is worn by Mormons, and fundamentalist Mormons". It sounds like someone wanted to make it sound like only fundamentalist Mormons wear the garments. Am I mistaken here, or do "mainstream" Mormons not wear it?137.111.13.167 (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Mormon fundamentalists" is a term of art—they are not LDS Church members. It is worn by members of the LDS Church and by some members of some smaller churches with Mormon fundamentalism. Mormon fundamentalists are Mormons (as are members of the LDS Church), but not all Mormons are Mormon fundamentalists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see it really as a "term of the art". Many Mormons are not members of the LDS church. The original movement has fragmented, similar to the way that there are numerous ways to be a Baptist.—Kww(talk) 10:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a "term of art" in the sense that it does not mean members of the LDS Church who are especially conservative or traditional in their beliefs, which is what some people suspect it might mean from its literal meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So are the temple garments worn by Mormons or not?124.168.188.147 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not all sects identified as "Mormon" wear them. Some Mormons are not members of the LDS Church, and some of those Mormons do not wear the garments. Is there something we can add to the article to make that clearer?—Kww(talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
124.168.188.147, some members of the LDS Church ("mainstream Mormons") wear them. You have to meet certain standards to start wearing them. Some Mormon fundamentalists wear them. Apart from those two groups, no one wears them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
@Kww, perhaps the sentence "Today, the temple garment is worn primarily by members of LDS Church and by members of some Mormon fundamentalist churches." could be changed to "Today, the temple garment is worn primarily by Mormons (members of the LDS Church) and by members of some Mormon fundamentalist churches." This would help clear the issue for those who don't know that "member of LDS Church" translates to "Mormon". The only problem I see with this is equating "Mormon" with "LDS Church". This isn't a huge problem though, and it actually follows WP:MORMON to the letter. The only other Latter Day Saint movement adherents who identify as Mormon are Mormon fundamentalists, and they're mentioned in the same sentence. (It's appropriate to call an LDS Church member a "Mormon", but generally not appropriate to call a fundamentalist Mormon a "Mormon" without additional qualifiers.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the preceding user. To address earlier comments, the question I was raising is one of why the phrase "members of the LDS" is used, and then "Mormon fundamentalists" is used. Does this mean that there are no LDS fundamentalists who aren't Mormons? When you say "some" Mormons wear them, does that mean some Mormon schisms don't wear them at all? Or is it that all Mormon schisms do, but that you have to qualify to wear them? The point I am asking about is whether the garments are a part of the doctrines of each Mormon faith, or whether some Mormon schisms don't hold them to be. That isn't a question so much about whether each person who is a Mormon wears them.137.111.13.167 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not all Mormon groups have temple garments. By pure number of churches, the vast majority of Mormon churches do not have them. But one of the ones that does have them, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accounts for 98% of all Mormons, so that church and its beliefs do have a huge influence on what is perceived to be truly "Mormon". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of percentages, what percentage of LDS are 'temple worthy'? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It depends on what overall group you are talking about. If you mean what percentage of people who are on church membership rolls, it's probably quite a small percentage. Worldwide, about 30–40% of members attend church once per month, and of those that attend, less than half have received the endowment. So I'm guessing it might be 10–15% of total membership, or maybe 25–40% of those who are active in attending church. Of those who would self-identify as Mormon in censuses, etc., I'm guessing it might be about 20% or less. But these figures are very rough estimates and just my guesses based on other stats I have seen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.147.151 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to update these statistics but it cannot be done so instead I offer some background information. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not release statistics on numbers relating to "temple worthiness" nor " recommend holders" vs "non-recommend holders" so the above comment is purely speculation. How frequently members attend is not an indication of activity level per se. For instance a person may perform a necessary function which causes them to work 5 out of 6 Sundays and therefore only attend church once every six weeks but be considered fully 'active' and perform duties or shoulder responsibilities for his local church group while not fitting the description of active in the foregoing paragraph. Furthermore, having just relocated from a small "branch" of the LDS church in New England to a "ward" in Washington State I can attest to the fact that the statistics, to which I am privy due to the positions I held there and now here, are vastly different in each local unit (called a Ward or Branch depending on size), and may vary widely even within a stake (a group of neighboring wards and Branches). Sweeping statistical information can only paint with the widest of strokes in any organization worldwide in scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.147.151 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

worn by members "of some denominations"[edit]

I am unsure why this qualifier is included in the opening sentence. As far as I am aware, all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are expected to wear temple garments and they compose an overwhelming majority of the LDS movement (98% according to our own page on the different LDS denominations). This phrase could mislead readers into thinking temple garments are worn by a minority or their use is disputed by a sizable minority and not worn by a supersupersupermajority. While the next paragraph indicates that the LDS Church expects their members to wear them, I don't believe we should assume readers already know the size of the LDS Church in relation to other LDS denominations. As such, I have tentatively replaced "by members of some denominations" with "by a vast majority of adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement". This doesn't sound optimal to me, but at least it is not misleading.65.182.235.190 (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it when the tail wags the dog, but the question is how to be factual in the article. All members of the LDS Church that have attended the temple wear the garment; it is not worn by all members. A very small percentage of the other groups wear temple garments and those that do are very small in deed i.e. memberships in the thousands only. The problem is I don't know which ones have a temple and which ones don't. Do you know? An alternative wording might be something like, "Worn primarily by the members of the LDS Church". -StormRider 07:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
65.182.235.190: Not all LDS wear the garments. Children, for example. In another example, my mother was a highly religious member of the standard Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She tithed when she could. She attended all services and meetings applicable to her. She belonged to the Relief Society. She taught classes at her ward, primarily in genealogical research. She created countless Jello molds for countless pot-luck suppers. She cleaned her ward regularly. She wasn't born a Mormon, but became dyed-in-the-wool once she found the Church. However, due to her modest financial position, she was never able to travel to a temple. Therefore, she never took part in the temple rites and was never eligible to wear the undergarments.
By the way, I find the difference between "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", and "Latter Day Saint movement" (sans the hyphen, and add a capital D) to be disjointing. Yes, I have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Title_edit, which doesn't sound all that logical to me, but perhaps I am too used to "Latter-day Saint". Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The garment is only available to and legitimately worn by Latter Day Saints who have been through the temple for their own endowment. Just as wearing a police uniform does not make me an officer, the garment does not make a person LDS nor temple worthy. Only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has capital T temples, as in a house of worship above and apart from regular Sunday service meeting houses. The Community of Christ church (formerly the RLDS church) owns two 'temples.' One is the abandoned LDS temple in Kirtland, OH, a historical landmark and museum, and their 'temple' in Independence, MO, which is in actuality their church headquarters and office building. Neither of these buildings function as a house of worship. They do not 'endow' their members. The Community of Christ is the largest LDS movement splinter group (about 250,000 members) from the mainstream LDS church (approximately 15 million members). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.147.151 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Some Mormon fundamentalists also have temples or endowment houses and wear temple garments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolding "Magic Underwear" in lead[edit]

The lead has long contained the phrase "magic underwear" as a non-Mormon term for the garments, and think it's appropriately included and well-referenced. Someone recently bolded the term as well, and I reverted. I was in turn reverted by Good Olfactory, citing WP:MOSBOLD. I think Good Olfactory makes a valid argument under MOSBOLD, and magic underwear certainly redirects here. However, the phrase is clearly snarky and apparently offensive to Mormons (I'm not one myself). My editorial instinct is to include the phrase, but not bold it, as that seems to unnecessarily highlight an offensive term. MOSBOLD allows for highlighting redirects, but certainly doesn't require them. It's not a big deal, but I thought it worth taking to the talk page.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to by justified under MOS:BOLD, but like Mojo Hand I can see why maybe it shouldn't be. I'd be happy for it not the be bolded if there is consensus for that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I would certainly agree with not bolding the term. Skiendog (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
For better or worse, it's a widely recognized term in reference to Mormon temple garments, and redirects here. I agree with bolding the term, as long as its context emphasizes that it is derogatory and perceived as offensive. I think that sentence in the lede is fine as is. Xcalibur (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to add-mormons are offended by anyone not using their jargon. They will get offended if you say "Joe Smith" instead of "Joseph Smith". So... leave the bold.2601:283:C201:562C:484F:16A5:FC4E:22AD (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's actually downright insulting. Just because a derogatory term is well sourced does not mean we should be including it anywhere except perhaps as an example of popular perception. I don't think it should be there at all; and certainly not in the intro. I'm not suggesting religious quirks demand respect; however, it's not lede-important that people refer to them (pejoratively) with this term. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm calling this one out one more time, having received no response in March. Why does a derogatory term belong in the lede, twice? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a sentence about the term should probably remain in the article, but I would support removing it from the lede. Perhaps we could move it to the existing "Use in protests" section? The section could be called something like, "Protests and opposition".--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Where do we usually put derogatory terms about religious practices in their relevant articles? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Manufacture[edit]

The article says "In the 1930s, the LDS Church built Beehive Clothing Mills, which was responsible for manufacturing and selling garments." Is this still the case? If not, where are they manufactured now? And what fabric is used? Still cotton, or something synthetic, or it varies? Beorhtwulf (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

They're made solely by Beehive Manufacturing in American Fork, Utah. They are made of a range of materials. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Members not instructed to wear garments day and night[edit]

In the article, it states that members are told in their recommend interview to wear the garments day and night. However, with the new questions, that is no longer the case.

Here is the source, it is on the last page in the grayed out box. I'm not sure how to change the article and add that as a source, so I was hoping someone else could correct this error. Thanks!