I just read a wonderful talk given by an emeritus member of the Seventy from August 1997, entitled, “The Temple Garment.”

https://www.lds.org/ensi...ard-commitment?lang=eng

The things that he says in his talk have invited the Spirit’s confirmation to me about the wearing of the temple garment, and I would strongly encourage everyone on this site to read it as well.

One part of the talk that stick out to me is the following statement taken from a letter from the First Presidency in Oct 1988:

“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. Thus, members should not remove either all or part of the garment to work in the yard or to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. Nor should they remove it to participate in recreational activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath regular clothing. When the garment must be removed, such as for swimming, it should be restored as soon as possible.

“The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn. Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.”

I, for one, have need to make some changes to show the Lord how much my covenants mean to me. In all seriousness, I invite you to honestly ask yourself if your attitude towards wearing the “garments of the Holy Priesthood” is bringing you closer to Christ, or away from Him and His chosen leaders.

The words of Elder Asay are enough for me to see that as an endowed member of the Church, naturism is not appropriate and should not be practiced by those who have made sacred covenants that have set them apart from the world.

What DadinSW said especially "Just because we do not all make the same decision does not automatically make a different decision sinful for the person making it."

OB,
I should have read the article like you did! My response was written rather quickly in bed, with minor edits in the morning.

The garment seems to be one of several things in the church where the doctrine has changed organically over time. The cultural issues with the body are apparent in some of the counsel given around the garment, so personal revelation is required.

Amen, NERD, thank you. I would echo this same sentiment as well - I know that naturism is what I need because I have received direct personal revelation telling me so, and it has helped me have a much better, more wholesome, and less fearful attitude about the human body. Whenever I am clothed (which is still the usual) I always wear my temple garment and hold it sacred, but I know that I can remove it in order to partake of these benefits.

About personal revelation, again, I know that I have received nothing that can even be construed to direct any other person's life. I make no claim, for instance, that everyone will be nude in the celestial kingdom - I really have no idea, and I kinda expect that most people's clothing preferences would just carry over. But I do claim that I will be, and that it will be OK, it will be non-intrusive, and I will lose no eternal ground over it.

The statement posted at the top of this discussion is one of the things that has encouraged me to believe in naturism. The wording is very interesting.

Consider this sentence:

"members should not remove either all or part of the garment to work in the yard or to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing."


Why did they not say this:

"members should not remove either all or part of the garment to work in the yard or to lounge around the home."

What they did say specifically adds words that disinclude nudity. Either they didn't think of the case of nudity, or they were willing to specifically disinclude it. Now this statement:

"...that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath regular clothing."

Again, to me, this is talking about the garments worn in connection with clothing. The garments are underclothes.

Again, here is another statement which specifically has to do with the use of clothing:

“The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn."

The last statement clearly gives the purposes for wearing the garment. It does not say anything about the body needing to be hidden or covered or that the body is deficient in some way that the garment makes up for.

"Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.”

God created Adam and Eve naked and then pronounced them good, and left them that way in the Garden of Eden. Satan introduced the idea of clothing, but manifestly clothing is a necessary part of our telestial existence. So God has provided a standard for that clothing. This is my interpretation, but all these statements, and others not referenced here, all skirt around the question of nudity, leaving it, in my mind, one of those questions that we have to decide by the spirit.

I have read and love this talk by Elder Asay, and appreciate the discussion, but I want to post something from the churches statement about what is doctrine on the LDS newsroom:



Like Al_M my activities are typically very deliberate. I go to resorts or beaches where I wouldn't be wearing the garment, but typically wear it night and day. I was thinking just this morning about what is the exact pharisitical time limit of taking it off before a shower until after a shower that you can go without sinning. If I go to the gym (those who know me will laugh at that) do I have to change out of the garment there? and put it on before driving home? what if I stop to buy a drink on the way back. Did I tarry too long?

Farcical examples, but useful in the realization that time spent wearing the garment alone cannot become more important than how you live your life wearing it or not.

My wife said that post was too defensive. So here goes an attempt at a rewrite. She also really likes LL's description of nudity as a tool.

---

Many on this site have found great benefits to a degree of nudity and/or naturism in helping overcome the shame, isolation, and improper sexuality of the society that we live in. Naturism can help bring much needed healing amd even increased spiritual sensitivity and growth. Given those and other benefits, would it not be even more reasonable to remove the garment at times and enjoy naturism, than to remove the garment for an afternoon in the pool? This is part of playing all keys on the gospel piano in harmony and balance.

It is understandable that some would question decisions about the wearing of the garment, but this is ultimately something to be decided between the wearer and the Lord.


As for modesty, there is plenty written here about the proper attitude of modesty. Modesty does not always imply covering of one's body -- a fact understood anciently, but no longer recognized in contemporary western society. Pushing back against societal norms, no matter how damaging they may be will always invite criticism and may at times appear sinful. I have learned through my own experience and from that shared on this forum and other places that there is wisdom and freedom in carefully judging between culture and gospel doctrine, and then at times shedding restrictive cultural chains while being true to the eternal gospel principles. This is no different than LDS church members already do comapred to the larger society, except that the cultural norms around nudity are so deeply embedded in church culture that they get confused with doctrine.

God expects us each to learn to make judgments of right and wrong in our lives, and to have good reason to back up those decisions. This is part of learning to become like Him. The fact that some individuals choose differently than others does not mean that some of them are necessarily choosing sin.

BabyJay, When doctrines change, they are announced in conference, or by letter, and then the entire conference is asked to sustain the president of the church. This happened when the priesthood was given to everyone. Now you could argue that the proscription was never really doctrine, but the effect of racism and misunderstanding of doctrine of the time, but that is a different discussion.

Policies change often, and come out often as letters from the first presidency. Even handbook 1 and 2 are revised and updated frequenlty, and do not represent the official doctrine of the church. Same with the Ensign and conference talks. Not doctrine.

They are typically doctrinal, but generally they are policies that are based off of experience and the best effort of leaders to understand and enact doctrine.

There have been many letters from the first presidency that have later been changed, or pulled back. This is a general misconseption, and examples have been given of this on this forum and other places.

I agree that the points brought up are still valid and important, but Doctrines, principles and policies are different things, and Elder Bednar has a great book (not doctrinal btw) on this subject.

That is a good point, thank you. I didn't mean to, but I do see how my words could be taken to mean that the content of the handbooks was "doctrine" - what I was just trying to convey that since instructions about the garment appear in the Handbooks, they do carry more weight than if they resided only in conference talks or the Ensign/Liahona, which is worth studying out more dilligently, as I have done. I do agree, though, that they don't carry nearly as much weight as the standard works, to say nothing of the doctrines of salvation they teach and what the Spirit indicates to you.