Discussion Forums - Religion & Spirituality

Topic: LDS/Mormons---Enlighten Us, Please!

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
T. -
Subject: LDS/Mormons---Enlighten Us, Please!
Date Posted: 12/13/2007 5:17 AM ET
Member Since: 1/21/2007
Posts: 9,989
Back To Top

I keep hearing the term "magic underwear" in association with Mitt Romney.  Is this derogatory to Mormons?  Can someone explain?

ETA--thanks for the information--I'm glad to know that the term is NOT nice. 



Last Edited on: 12/27/07 9:04 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 12/13/2007 8:12 AM ET
Member Since: 8/9/2005
Posts: 20,024
Back To Top

After receiving their endowments, Latter-day Saints wear a distinctive underwear on which special marks are embroidered. Known as "garments", this underwear, worn next to the skin at nearly all times, is meant to remind individuals of their commitment to their faith and to God. Men generally receive their endowment before going on a mission and women before they marry, but it is not a one-time ceremony like baptism. Saints are encouraged to return to the temple throughout their lives to continue growing their faith by experiencing the rituals of endowment. (from http://www.pbs.org/mormons/faqs/ )

Date Posted: 12/13/2007 8:24 AM ET
Member Since: 4/20/2006
Posts: 5,703
Back To Top

Thanks, I've been wondering about this myself. 

Date Posted: 12/13/2007 8:36 AM ET
Member Since: 8/9/2005
Posts: 20,024
Back To Top

I do believe that was the first time I have ever looked up the phrase "magic mormon underwear"

Date Posted: 12/13/2007 3:12 PM ET
Member Since: 1/9/2006
Posts: 6,638
Back To Top

Yes, it's derogatory to use terms like "magic underwear".  

Mormons are only endowed once — as you say, Chris, men before they go on a mission and women just prior to getting married.  They do participate in other temple ordinances but that's the proxy baptisms and sealings for other people. 

Date Posted: 12/13/2007 8:56 PM ET
Member Since: 5/7/2006
Posts: 5,295
Back To Top

So it's not silky and from Victoria's Secret guaranteed to make a special anniversary?

Date Posted: 12/13/2007 9:24 PM ET
Member Since: 1/9/2006
Posts: 6,638
Back To Top

You guys do realize that this has the significance of a crucifix to a mainline Christian or a star of David to a Jewish person, right? 

While I can understand curiosity and sharing information, I don't think mocking is any more appropriate that it would be for the above.  ::said the unbeliever::

Date Posted: 12/15/2007 3:21 PM ET
Member Since: 6/19/2007
Posts: 5,930
Back To Top

Is it mocking to call it holy underwear?  Because that's what it is, right? It's actual underwear.  And the mormons think it's holy? So, can I call it holy underwear?

Date Posted: 12/15/2007 4:08 PM ET
Member Since: 5/7/2006
Posts: 5,295
Back To Top

Is it mocking to call it holy underwear?  Because that's what it is, right? It's actual underwear.  And the mormons think it's holy? So, can I call it holy underwear?

I have Mormon friends that have never mentioned this before.  Does it really have the same significance as the cross and star of David?

Date Posted: 12/15/2007 6:59 PM ET
Member Since: 1/9/2006
Posts: 6,638
Back To Top

They haven't mentioned it before because it has very special significance which is at least as important to them as the symbols of other religions.  So, yes, you will not see a member of the LDS wearing a crucifix but the garments they won't talk about are that special to them.  They have insignia that are relevant to the way a Mormon is invited into the Celestial Kingdom when they die and they are sworn to keep all that "sacred". 

As for calling them "holy underwear", I think that would fall into an area where the person who hears the reference would make an assessment of your sincerity.  First of all, they probably wouldn't be especially comfortable about a non-LDS discussing it and won't be terribly forthcoming as they prefer to keep such things "sacred".  Personally, I understand that, but I don't accept a responsibility for remaining ignorant, only respectful.  Then, If you are going to discuss it, I think they'd prefer to hear them referred to as "garments"  which is the term they use. 



Last Edited on: 12/15/07 8:52 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 12/17/2007 10:37 PM ET
Member Since: 5/7/2006
Posts: 5,295
Back To Top

Well, It took going to a funeral today to get the whole idea of garments. One of my friends passed away last week. He was mormon. They buried him in a white outfit, white hat, and LDS watch. (I didn't ask anything about undergarments in a casket) They are very strict even in the end on what a person wears. It was a lovely service. I guess it matters in some religions what you wear even after you die.



Last Edited on: 12/17/07 10:39 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 12/19/2007 11:15 PM ET
Member Since: 1/9/2006
Posts: 6,638
Back To Top

What's an LDS watch?  I can't say I've ever heard of that. 

Date Posted: 12/20/2007 8:17 AM ET
Member Since: 5/7/2006
Posts: 5,295
Back To Top

It had a picture of one of the temples on it. Not sure which one.

Date Posted: 12/22/2007 3:24 PM ET
Member Since: 5/23/2005
Posts: 6,143
Back To Top

I know that you can buy watches that have a temple on, or that might say LDS, but it's definitely not a requirement to be buried in an LDS watch, nor do most LDS people have one.

As for "magic underwear", I'm not sure why that even comes up, except as an insult, to try to make LDS people (or Mitt Romney, in particular) look silly.  Why does anyone else care what kind of underwear anyone else is wearing?  It sure doesn't effect me if you want to wear thongs or bikinies or garments or nothing. 

P.S.  No, I'm not LDS, but I used to be.

 



Last Edited on: 12/22/07 3:25 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 12/22/2007 8:59 PM ET
Member Since: 8/9/2005
Posts: 20,024
Back To Top

Just to clarify I wasnt making fun of anything. I had never heard of it so I searched the phrase "magic Mormom underwear" because that was the phrase used. I also dont think Tammy was making fun either. She was curious and probably just like me didnt know what to call it. I didnt even think it was real until I found that article.

Date Posted: 12/22/2007 9:15 PM ET
Member Since: 5/23/2005
Posts: 6,143
Back To Top

I didn't mean anyone here was making fun of it, just answering the original post where she asked if it was derogatory.  Which, yes, it is.  If you hear someone using it in every day talk, they're not trying to be nice.

Date Posted: 12/23/2007 1:26 AM ET
Member Since: 8/9/2005
Posts: 20,024
Back To Top

Brenda I was referring more to Rainey than you.

Date Posted: 12/23/2007 5:27 PM ET
Member Since: 5/23/2005
Posts: 6,143
Back To Top

Well good, then.  Carry on. :)

Date Posted: 12/23/2007 5:44 PM ET
Member Since: 1/9/2006
Posts: 6,638
Back To Top

Brenda-  Since you're here and you would know can I ask some questions about LDS beliefs I've never understood?  If not, can you direct me to a site that will have complete, honest, unbiased info?  The LDS is not an easy thing to get informed about.



Last Edited on: 12/23/07 5:57 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 12/24/2007 5:25 AM ET
Member Since: 10/2/2007
Posts: 755
Back To Top


Last Edited on: 1/17/09 6:43 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 12/24/2007 2:33 PM ET
Member Since: 1/9/2006
Posts: 6,638
Back To Top

All LDS men over the age of 18 or 19 are priests for their families.  And they are all Elders tho only the 18 or 19yo missionaries and some of the highest in the LDS hierarchy are called by the title "Elder".  They have no professional ministry. 

But the question you raise about the logistics of how many planets they need and who, exactly, inhabits each one is problematical. There is an LDS saying that goes "families are forever".  But if each priesthood holder (each mature male) is to have his own godhood and planet at some point, what does "families are forever" mean beyond a god and his godess wife plus whatever unattached/unsealed women he may choose to call through the veil plus whatever spirit children (as opposed to their real-life/this-world children who have gone on to be gods and godesses on their own planets, assumedly) they continue to have for all eternity plus the worlds each of the gods on each of those planets create for their spirit children to be born into, just how many planets will there need to be over time?  And if this same process is being played out by other Heavenly Fathers and their spirit-chidren-become-flesh-and-then-become-gods, how many more planets is that? 

I don't want to trivialize it, but it's difficult to grasp and harder to take seriously. 



Last Edited on: 12/24/07 2:59 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 12/24/2007 2:44 PM ET
Member Since: 1/9/2006
Posts: 6,638
Back To Top

I wish the title — referring as negatively as it does — could be changed and we could have an honest exchange of information about the LDS here. 

Date Posted: 12/24/2007 5:04 PM ET
Member Since: 5/23/2005
Posts: 6,143
Back To Top

Rainey, I'd be happy to answer some questions.  Questions about things the LDS people consider sacred, even though at this point in time aren't necessarily sacred to me, I wouldn't talk about here out of respect.

As for the planet thing, it's my understanding that once they become gods, they would be creating their own worlds, universes, etc.  It wouldn't be like, "here, you get Jupiter, and Saturn's for you".  And I think they would all exist in seperate dimensions or something.  I don't know that that's really something that anyone could answer for you.  There are some things that even the LDS prophets don't know answers to, but they believe they will find out certain things after they die.  Not that this is necessarily one of them, I'm not claiming to be all knowledgable about all things LDS.  I freely admit that. 

Date Posted: 12/24/2007 6:18 PM ET
Member Since: 1/9/2006
Posts: 6,638
Back To Top

Thanks, Brenda-  Yes.  I realized that we weren't talking about everything being contained in our solar system.  Even so it boggles the mind.  And the great importance of keeping a family together when they'd, for the most part, all be in their own worlds anyway seems to have a rather obvious logical flaw. 

I appreciate your openness to discuss the LDS and I can well understand that you've grown up with that "sacred not secret" tradition.  But I didn't and I'm not willing to play it that way although I certainly respect your wish to respect the wishes of LDS believers.  Two entirely different things at odds, I believe. 

I understand that a culture can wish to be able to hold that line but, personally, I think it's not healthy, on the one hand, and, frankly, suspect, on the other.  That doesn't mean you or anyone else needs to defend it — it's simply an LDS way of life I don't buy into any more than I think the Church of Scientology (the only other comparable group I can think of) should operate in secrecy.  But  I understand that LDS members and Scientology adherants have the right to make every attempt.  Meanwhile, I would suspect every other religious group in the country and in the world believes their canon is also "sacred" yet manage to be able to share it freely and joyfully (usually) and let the light of day shine through it. 

Finally, I have been trying to understand the LDS with one vigor or another for about 30 years.  I suppose I could continue on  my languid pace but I think someone who holds these core beliefs and will, undoubtedly, bring them into presidential policy decisions is running for the presidency and I think the time for all informed voters to be aware has come and will not wait.  So I apologize in advance for my persistance and express again that I don't believe you need feel compelled to disclose anything. 



Last Edited on: 12/24/07 6:40 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 12/24/2007 11:30 PM ET
Member Since: 10/2/2007
Posts: 755
Back To Top


Last Edited on: 1/17/09 6:42 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Page: