Sleeveless Garments

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett and I am here as always with the frolicsome Ian Wilkes. How are you, Ian Wilkes?

I am great. I have no idea what that word means, though. I'm sure you'll tell me.

Frolicsome. You should be able to tell by the context.

Oh, frolic.

Frolic, as in frolic. Energetic, bubbly, fun.

So yeah, feeling energetic, fun, looking forward to this podcast, this conversation. I always do. So yeah, frolicsome. Great word of the day.

The great word of the day. It's always fun to have, you know, a It's fun to expand your vocabulary.

It is. I agree. Learn something every day.

You learn something every day. Well, we've learned quite a bit this last week. Speaking of a segue here, we wanted to talk about the changes that they're making to the temple garment. They have announced, the church has announced that they are going to introduce a new design for the temple garment, but only in areas where it's hot, which I think is kind of bizarre. And I also don't think it's going to last very long because everybody's going to want these garments because these garments don't have sleeves. And, you know, we've been told so many times, at least I have growing up, that the garment is sort of a, a model for modesty, that whatever clothing you decide to wear, it ought to match the garment and make sure that if you're wearing sleeveless clothing, that obviously doesn't cover the existing garment. And the term that a lot of women have used is porn shoulders. The idea that if you expose your shoulders, you become walking pornography for the men who look at you. I think there was a talk by then Elder Oaks, now President Oaks, where he talked about women become pornography if they dress immodestly and inspire immodest thoughts in men. And there are an awful lot of problems with that idea. And I think one of the main problems with that idea is that when the garment was introduced in the time of Joseph Smith, it was never sold as this kind of modesty standard. It— in fact, the original temple garments were in fact just underwear that people put the markings on. I mean, you had your own underwear and then you turned it into a temple garment by either drawing or sewing in the markings on the garment. And those garments in, in the 19th century were ankle to wrist, as most underwear was. That was not considered unusual as underwear at the time was ankle to wrist. And the garment has been transformed, and it initially, it was a one-piece garment, and then it became a two-piece garment, and it's gone through all kinds of changes. And now this latest change is that we're now going to have essentially a sleeveless garment. Uh, I have an awful lot of thoughts about this. I'm assuming you have an awful lot of thoughts about this, and I'm going to ask you for that in a bit. But I just want to— I want to couch this in my own sort of experience with this, because it's so remarkable to me that we can even have this conversation. Because growing up and when we were missionaries in Scotland, garments were just not something that you talked about at least not publicly. And it certainly wasn't something when I was growing up and I grew up in the church. You converted to the church as a teenager, but I grew up and I saw my parents in their garments. I was aware of garments, but I still didn't know anything about them. I didn't know anything about, for instance, the marks on the garments. I didn't realize the garments had any kind of significance to them. And I really didn't learn details about the garments until I went through the temple that first time. I had bought garments, you know, I had, I had prepared for that. I knew that that was going to be something that was going to be part of my life going forward. But I really didn't understand what they were for, what they meant, what they did, what the significance was, what the symbolism was. And there was absolutely no venue in which you could discuss that. Even if I'd had questions, and I really didn't, I didn't have questions. I, it just didn't really even occur to me that I had to be thinking about these things. Uh, but even after going through the temple and after wearing the garment, it was just assumed that you did not discuss them. I remember you leading a zone conference where you asked— you talked about the marks on the garments and you talked about what they symbolized. And I thought, Ian Wilkes is going to hell. How dare he discuss this outside of the temple? And, and you had said that you had been in some kind of a meeting where somebody had done that and you had felt the spirit. And so you felt it was appropriate to be able to do that. And I remember on my mission thinking, boy, that's just not appropriate. You just don't talk about the garment ever. That has changed radically and significantly to the point where now garments are discussed in General Conference. And that's a fairly recent development, but it's a radical departure from the culture in which I was raised. Temple garments were just so sacred. It's the whole— it's the whole kind of taboo that surrounds the temple generally, because we're told we're not allowed to discuss the temple outside of the temple. Except we never make that kind of a promise in the temple. We make a promise in the temple to not discuss specific signs and tokens that are given to us in the temple. And we are not allowed to discuss what those are and reveal what those are. And there's nothing else in the temple ceremony that tells you you can't talk about things. And I remember asking my father, for instance, about the charge to avoid all light-mindedness, loud laughter, and evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, and saying, what does loud laughter mean? And because I'm, as people can tell when they listen to me, I've had some complaints about this podcast that I'm just too loud. And that's always sort of been the volume setting for my voice. I'm a loud guy. And I said, does that mean I can't laugh because I'm loud? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not what it means at all. It means, it means, um, it means the kind of laughter when you're drunk. Drunken laughter is what it means. And I thought, okay, well, that's fine. And then I remember talking to another church leader who said, no, no, no, what it means is you're not allowed to laugh at sacred things. And I went, well, isn't that what light-mindedness is? Isn't that sort of laughing at sacred things? And the bottom line is that nobody could give me an answer because nobody knows. And finally, that was taken out of the endowment. I'm assuming that it was put— placed in the endowment as sort of a leftover from some kind of Masonic language, because I know that a lot of parts of the endowment were just sort of lifted directly from Masonic temple ceremonies. And I'm wondering if that was a phrase that came from that, but I don't know. But the re— the reality is that every single person interpreted that phrase however they chose to interpret it, and that there was not some sort of objective standard to which you could appeal to say, this is what loud laughter is, this is exactly what's forbidden. And now that language is gone. So you start to wonder, well, why was it even there in the first place if it isn't some kind of eternal principle some kind of eternal solid standard upon which we can rely, then why was it ever there? And what does that say about the rest of the ceremony? Well, that's the kind of discussion I'm now seeing about the change in garments, because so many, particularly women— and because I think as we have this discussion, we have to acknowledge the fact that we are coming from a place of male privilege. I've never, ever really had an issue wearing garments. I find them comfortable. I've never— I've never had a problem really with garments. I've had a few sort of— well, the one problem I would say I had with them was when I was a theater student at the University of Southern California. And when I was in shows, you change clothing in group dressing rooms. And I was always kind of embarrassed to be wearing garments. I didn't want people to see my garments. It wasn't necessarily that I was embarrassed by them, but it was also this whole taboo about people can't see them, people can't know about them. These are so sacred, I can't discuss them. And so I would go into a bathroom stall and change my clothes in a bathroom stall. I now look back on it and say, Why was I even wearing garments if I'm wearing a costume on stage? You know, you have— I was in the Richards Building at BYU this last week, which is where the dance department is, and I saw pictures on the wall of dancers in costumes, BYU dancers, and clearly they weren't wearing garments because they didn't match up with the costumes that were being worn. And they apparently saw it as appropriate not to wear garments in those circumstances. And I now, looking back on it, think, I probably shouldn't even have worn garments when I was wearing stage costumes. But regardless of that, I was sort of embarrassed by it. I would go change in my own sort of corner, and I felt strange and isolated as a result of that. But that's really a minor kind of difficulty that I had. I've had with garments. I really haven't had any kind of difficulty. There has been a great deal of discussion some of which has spilled out into the larger media, into the New York Times, about garments, women discussing the fact that these garments— there are health reasons why these garments are problematic, that women get infections. And I don't want to get too specific or medical, but it's a much greater sacrifice for women to wear these kinds of underclothing, which are uncomfortable and in some cases unhealthy, than it is for, for men who are anatomically different and don't have those same kind of challenges. But the one thing that I'm seeing from so many women is this idea of, okay, we were told we were walking pornography. We were told that these garments were modesty cloaks that kept us from tempting other men. And we were told that we couldn't expose our shoulders no matter what. And the cost, the difficulty of doing that, uh, the fashions of the day, uh, almost always have dresses that are very lovely dresses, uh, that expose shoulders. And, and Latter-day Saints are— wedding dresses very often expose shoulders, and Latter-day Saint women have been forbidden from wearing those because they don't match up with the temple garment. And there's so much, I think, legitimate anger and frustration with the idea of, okay, here are the sacrifices I have made as a woman to wear the temple garment. And now with these new garment changes, I'm— it's very clear that I made those sacrifices for nothing. There was no eternal principle involved. The— their apparent— and the garment was never intended to be some sort of modesty shield. The intent of the garment was always to remind us of our covenants not to make sure that our shoulders were covered. And so it's, it's really interesting when the church makes what most people would see as a positive change. And I see it as a positive change. I'm looking forward to wearing garments that don't have sleeves. I don't know that they're going to be available in Utah yet, but I think that it's just a matter of time. The idea that they can keep these isolated and siloed in what they consider warm climates is really kind of silly. All you have to do is talk to your cousin in a warm climate and say, could you pick up a pair of garments for me without sleeves? And you're in business. So this is going to be churchwide. Eventually garments are going to be sleeveless and that's going to be the new standard. And whenever something positive like this happens, You see this kind of reaction of, well, sheesh, I made all these sacrifices to live by the old standard, and now I'm told the old standard didn't matter. And there's this sort of sense of betrayal. I had that sense of betrayal when the church reversed the policy of exclusion where we weren't allowed to baptize the children of gay parents. And when it was reversed, uh, my sense was, okay, I'm glad it's reversed, but why can't we acknowledge then that it was wrong, that there was a mistake, that it wasn't this wonderful, marvelous revelation at the time, that it was actually a very painful and destructive mistake. And I think that's what a lot of these women are looking for. I don't know that it would, it would fully be satisfactory to say, okay, yeah, it was a mistake to say that shoulders are pornography, um, and we're sorry for that. But it's certainly better than just pretending that we never ever said that, or we never taught that, or the culture never demanded that of us and, and just presume that that's flushed down the memory hole and off we go and we're going to wear these new sleeveless garments and just hope for the best and just pretend that's the way it's always been. Pretend it's never been a problem. That erodes faith.

To whom should I send your message?

Oh, sorry. My phone just said something to me. But that kind of, that kind of unwillingness to confront error, unwillingness to apologize for a past mistake, unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of any kind of mistake, I think that gets back to the fundamental, the most destructive problem in the church, which is this false doctrine of prophetic infallibility. The idea that we've never done anything wrong, that leaders have never done anything wrong, that we've never made any mistakes. Everything comes back to that for me. And for this, uh, we can't just celebrate, hey, this is great, we're finally getting sleeveless garments, because there's too much pain associated with the, the past mistake, the past idea that garments had to have sleeves and that there was some kind of eternal purpose to that. And We're not willing to accept or acknowledge that we could have gotten it wrong. So that's kind of my rough overview of the whole thing. You're not currently wearing garments anymore, so I'm really interested to hear your perspective from the outside looking in.

I just want to clarify that I am wearing clothes.

No, you're wearing clothes. Yes, I'm wearing clothes. I'm wearing garments.

I'm wearing clothes. I want to make sure that I— because I'm in Canada, otherwise it would be quite cold today.

Well, this is an audio podcast. Cast, so it's good for people to know that we are closed while we're doing— we are closed. Absolutely. I, I think at least 80% of the time we're closed when we record.

80% of the time. This is a fascinating subject and, and one that I wanted to, to, uh, get into at some point. So the timing with the church making the analysis on it on its website on the 17th of October, a few days ago, is, uh, is, is certainly interesting. We've, on previous podcasts, we've talked about at times how the church is changing in different ways at different times. On some of the hard stuff, it takes the church quite a long time to change. On other stuff, it's happening quicker. And I see this as a positive change. But a significant one at that. You and I come at the garment experience from different angles. You grew up in the church, I didn't. You were taught about these sacred garments. You saw them, you didn't talk about them, but you knew they were sacred. And that was instilled into you as a member of your family, member of the church at that time. I didn't have that experience. I converted to the church at 16. I had no— when I was taught by the missionaries, they made no reference to the temple, by the way, about the endowment or the sealings or the washings and anointings. There was no conversation whatsoever about at some point I would need to perform those sacred ordinances. They did mention about the temple, about going there and, and being sealed to, to God and, and taking out sacred, um, you know, I think they mentioned ordinances, but there's nothing specific. There's no discussion, conversation whatsoever about garments. I had no idea what I was signing up for, but quite early on into my, you know, post-conversion within the first year. I heard about them and I was quite intrigued by them. And then when I saw them, I thought the most strangest cultish thing I'd ever heard of or ever seen. And then when I heard about the markings, I thought it was very, very strange. I remember I served a mission with you and I— before you go to mission, of course, you are required, instructed, required to go to the temple and take out your endowments before you serve a mission. And I did that in 1986. This is pre-1990, before the, you know, the changes. And I've shared my experience with the endowment and the Washington's anointings. And they were, for me, frightening. They were— I felt I joined a cult. They were the most weirdest, strangest thing that I've ever experienced and ever seen. When I went through the temple and went through the washings and anointings, you, you wear— I wore this, um, not sure what it was. It was like a, um, a covering, like a, like a shawl, a very long shawl to my feet. And I was wearing nothing underneath. And the individual performed an ordinance with oil and gave me the, well, the washings and anointing with oil with this long, white, thin cloak-type shawl I was wearing with wearing nothing underneath. I felt completely strange. It was the most uncomfortable experience I'd had in my life at that time. And then I went into, and then you put on the sacred garments. I thought that was strange. You then go through the ordinance, the endowment, and then you learn about the markings. And the markings were interesting. You know, there's a reference there to Freemasonry. So I wanna couch this in Freemasonry on the, you know, for our listeners who are not members, Mormons, active Mormons who are in good standing, who are dedicated, devoted, committed members of the church, who pay tithing, who are temple recommend holders, who receive interviews every year and go through the— sorry, every 2 years— go through the process of being qualified as worthy, upstanding members of the church in full fellowship in the church, are invited and required to hold a temple recommend. There are certain terms and conditions that they have to abide by. One of them, of course, is one of the questions. One of the 15 Yes or No questions is, do you wear the garment both day and night? Some of the questions are coming back to me now. And having asked those questions thousands of times as a bishop and also a stake presidency, but in the, in the, in my experience going through the temple, which is a very strange and unusual experience and quite an uncomfortable experience for me, I learned that Again, if we couch this in Freemasonry, I learned that the markings on the garment were representing the, uh, the one was a square that was a reverse L-shaped symbol on the, on the right breast that represents justice and fairness. On the, uh, the other one was a compass. And we could, you know, when we put the garments on, we could see, and I, I just couldn't stop touching them because I thought the most strangest thing. I, I looked down and I could see these sown in symbols that was just strange and weird and bizarre and interesting all at the same time. The other mark, of course, was on the navel, you know, in the tummy area, and that was a horizontal line in the midsection. The V-shaped, by the way, symbol on the left breast that represents the North Star. If you remember that, the North Star.

They don't mention that at the ceremony though, do they? No, no.

But that's what I was told. It represented like the north, like a direction, like the truth, the north, the direction. That's what I was taught. And the horizontal line was in the midsection and at the side of the knee was the, you know, on the hem of the right leg. And that was every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ and every knee shall bow. Words. I think they were the words. So it, so in, in, in, it was quite extraordinary experience for me. I, I learned all about the garment and the meaning and the symbols for the first time back in, I think it was September, October 1986. And that there was, I, I, I, I attended, uh, the temple preparation classes prior to going to the temple. And there was no reference to— there was a brief reference to the garment, no reference to the symbols, no reference or details— sorry, reference to the Washington 19th Endowment and the garment, but no details in regards to what I will be doing in the temple prior to going to the temple. Yes, you do get the option at the very beginning, as you know, the beginning of the endowment, to— if you're not comfortable with this, you don't want to proceed with the endowment, you've got the option of getting up and walking out. And I'm surrounded by friends, uh, people who have invested a great deal in my life at that time, at the age of, you know, just— I think I was 21 before I went, 20, 20 years old, went out for the endowment. And all these people that I knew so well were all around me supporting me, and I certainly didn't feel it would be right to leave. But I did feel uncomfortable. In hindsight, I wish I had— did I wish I'd left? It was a struggle because the whole thing was so unusual and so strange. And so at the end of that day, which made me feel so uncomfortable on that Saturday, I was suddenly wearing these garments and told that they would be a protection and that I must wear them both day and night. And if I didn't, and this is what I was taught and I discussed this in this lesser room, I had lots of questions. You can imagine I had all these questions. You know, you, you, you, you, your experience is completely different than mine. You were, you knew about the garments, you knew about the temple, you probably heard all kinds of things about the temple growing up. Probably I didn't. This whole thing was, I was dropped into the situation with very little preparation. The only, uh, I had questions and even in the temple, Jim Bennett, I said, I've got all these questions. And they said, you can't, uh, Ian, you can't ask the questions even in the temple unless and until you are in the Celestial Room. Oh, that's the only place that you can have questions about the endowment, the seals, anointings, and about the garment. That's the only place you can ask questions is in the Celestial Room. So I had all these questions. And you don't spend a great deal of time in the Sussurra Room. You might spend 15 minutes, and even then you're supposed to be reverent. Supposed to sit in this chair, this comfy sofa in the corner with all these chandeliers, all this, you know, this palace style adornments all around you. And the expectation is that you sit quietly, reverently, and you contemplate your existence. So you contemplate your relationship with God. Yes, you might have one or two questions, but that's not, uh, the— I had all these questions going through my head and didn't really feel I had the opportunity to ask the questions. Anyway, I learned that the, the question— the, the, the garment, uh, had to be worn both day and night, uh, that obviously take them off for washing, that you even playing a sport, you had to, uh, I was told, look for opportunities to wear the garment, don't look for opportunities to take them off. Like for a sport, look at it from the other way. If you can keep them on, you keep wearing them, then do so, even if it's a sport that where usually you might take them off, look for opportunities to keep the garments on. That was the specific and distinct message that I received. I was told that the garment was a protection. And if I took them off, I would not experience that protect physical and spiritual protection, that if I took them off, that I would be prone to sinning and more temptation and doing things immorally that I shouldn't be doing. But by keeping them on, it kept my mind focused and it kept me, uh, committed to the, the covenants that I had, um, agreed to keep during the endowment session. I was also, uh, learned that, um, The garments are a holy priesthood garments. So there's a male component there. So these garments were garments of the holy priesthood and that women wore them in order to be, to come under the protection of the, and the umbrella of the protection of the priesthood. So women had the same obligation under the, uh, umbrella of the priesthood, and, uh, and that the garments were of the, of the holy priesthood. So I left, uh, the temple that day. We drove up on the bus back to the stake house there with all the stake members. I had so many questions, was told that I couldn't discuss these things outside of the temple was quite uncomfortable. I had these things on me that I just didn't feel very comfortable, and I had to, you know, I had to wear them. Now we've got this change. So I went on the mission and I just got used to them like everybody else, and it became part of me, part of my identity. And I had no problem with the style. I, I, I didn't like some of the materials, so I, I ordered some that were more comfortable. I had no problem with the symbols. I just got used to them and then they just became part of my, my life. I think the, what appears is happening here is that they must have had, the church must have had some feedback— or I've heard— performed a questionnaire or issued a questionnaire to some units and stakes and got some feedback on wearing the garment in hot, humid areas. It says here, the Church's press letter says, is providing redesigned options in styles and fabrics for sacred temples worn by members, including those residing in hot, humid areas. Presume that this message for everyone, that anyone can You know, even if you're living in northern parts of Canada, I presume you've got the option of buying and wearing these different styles with no shoulders in them. Or is it exclusive to hot humid temperatures? I live in a part of Canada that gets quite hot in the summer, but it's Canada, it also gets very cold in the winter. Does that mean we put on the longer garments for the winter and the shorter garments for summer? It seems a little bit odd there. Or is the rule for anyone that anyone can buy and wear these styles even if they live in Antarctica? I don't, I don't know. I don't know what that position is. But it says here, the First Presidency, in making this announcement, emphasized the importance, importance of the garment of the holy priesthood in a letter on April 12th. And that also alerted general local authorities to lead us to changes to the temple recommend interview questions and accompanying the statement of wearing the garment. It says here that the garment of the holy priesthood is a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ and is a reminder of our current relationship with him and Heavenly Father. And when I had that, uh, station on the mission that you attended as a ZOE leader, I think it was a YOD leader, um, I got the idea from two missionaries that had— who were— who was only Zenro when I first came out— who actually got permission from President Dunn to talk about the garment to a bunch of missionaries, including myself, when I arrived the Scotland Denim Mission back in, you know, back in February '87 when these, um, when this— I remember having that meeting. I thought that was great. I thought it was really cool to connect the relationship between the garments and the symbols and the work, the missionary work, you know, commitment, obedience, live with exactness. The symbols, uh, remind us of those covenants, and I thought that was really good because I think it's really important to remind ourselves why we were out there serving a mission. And I felt a strong spirit from that meeting. And so I simply copied that conversation later on in the mission, which is where probably you heard it. And I got permission to do that from President Banks at that time. And you probably thought I was being a little bit, um, a little bit loose in terms of talking about stuff like that, but I saw a relationship between the garment, between the symbols, and the, the work, if you like, that we're doing in the, in the mission field. So I, I don't see anything negative in this. I see this as generally positive, Jim Bennett. I think it's, um, I take into— I, I accept that in hot, humid climates, it, you need to wear styles and, and, um, uh, a type of garment that's are conducive to those kind of climates. I don't know if that's a hard and fast rule for climbers. For example, is it very prescriptive in the event that the temperature reaches like 32 Celsius or 30 Celsius and then you take, you change your garments or is it just, because in the Conversation in the temple recommend conversations, it's a, they talk about personal choice. Is it personal, personal, personal choice? Or is it more prescriptive? I don't know. I'm not getting any of the clarity of that in the statement that the church has made on its website. So just to summarize, there's my experience. It was, the whole thing was odd. I couldn't ask questions. Very limited asking questions. Went on a mission, got used to them, talked about them a little bit on the mission, felt that if I didn't wear them, I wouldn't have the protection, physical protection. You hear stories that were mystery stories on the mission where someone was scolded with hot water on a kettle or something. They were making a hot water bottle or something, and some of the hot water spilled onto their thigh. But because the garment was on the leg, they didn't get burned. But I know only part of the, only the part of the leg that the water touched, that where there was no garment, is there were, there was an injury there. I, I heard these strange bizarre stories like that on the mission, which I didn't, I believed at the time, but in hindsight I don't believe that anymore. I don't know what physical protection the garment provides, um, post me leaving the church. At the time though, I just thought, and I was taught, drummed into me, that if I don't wear that garment, I'm not protected physically, spiritually. I'm going to go off and, and, um, do all kinds of immoral things, and my physical body is not going to— is, you know, is going to be exposed to all kinds of potential risks. So again, I think this is a, is a good move. I don't know, I'd be fascinated to get the reaction of an older senior member who has worn the traditional styles over the years, what they think. Be fascinating to get those people on and have a conversation with them. But that's my, you know, pretty much my download on, on what I think is going on here.

Well, you raise a couple of things that are interesting. I mean, you talk about whether or not the website or the church is prescriptive about how these sleeveless garments can be worn or and They aren't. And furthermore, I would go so far as to say, as they aren't nearly as prescriptive about how the garment is to be worn as the church culture would have you believe. Uh, for instance, um, very often I was asked the temple recommend questions that focus on garments have changed rather markedly in a short period of time. It used to be that they would read this statement where they would say you need to make sure you're wearing the garment day and night. That was the phrase that was in there, and there, there was even an addition about you shouldn't take the garment off to do yard work. I mean, they specifically identified yard work as something that can be done with the garment. And then that changed and they said, are you wearing the temple as— wearing the garment as you were instructed in the temple? And that was pretty much all that it said. It didn't outline when, where, and how.

It did say in accordance with covenants you've made in the temple. I mean, the supplementary information is coming back to my mind now. And those two, they're the only questions where you get this supplementary information about wearing the garments in accordance with the covenants that he made in the temple. I remember that. And you had to read that verbatim, by the way. Right. You had to read. I remember looking at my piece of paper and read that straight off the paper.

Right. But the question is, what covenant did I make in the temple with regard to the garments? There isn't one. There isn't one. There's a mention of the garment at the beginning of the endowment ceremony where they say, You had a garment placed upon you which you have been instructed to wear throughout your life. And what does that mean? Just the same as what does loud laughter mean? What does it mean to wear the garment throughout your life? I wear shoes throughout my life. Does that mean I have to wear them night and day? Do I have to sleep in shoes? But if someone says, do you wear— have you worn shoes throughout your life? I'd say absolutely I have. The fact is that whether the church likes it or not, how the garment is to be worn will always be, has always been, and will always be subject to personal interpretation, period. That's that. And it's really kind of bizarre to me to see The Utah Area Presidency just last year issued a statement saying, "We're very concerned about how casual people have become wearing the temple garment." And that was sort of the precursor to the first time the garments were mentioned in General Conference. And they had a woman deliver the talk about the importance of wearing garments, which is not insignificant given the fact that women have, I think, a far more legitimate reason not to wear the garments for health reasons. And for— anyway, the point is the church and the members of the church don't seem to realize that the gospel, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ does not exist as some kind of Platonic ideal independent of the lived experience of the members. Every single member of the church lives their own version of the gospel. I mean, I, I, you know, when I wrote my response to the CES letter, Jeremy Runnels has written that I haven't read much of it because it's just got way too tedious for me. But he's written a debunking of my debunking of his letter, and the basic thesis of his debunking of is Jim Bennett is not describing Chapel Mormonism, he did— he's describing Jim Bennett Mormonism, that this is his own version of the church. It's not the real version of the church. And I would submit that there is no such thing as the real version of the church, because every single member of the church lives the gospel according to their interpretation of it, according to their personal circumstances to which they adapt it. And there's, there's no other way. It, it doesn't exist independent of that. If there are 17 million active members of the church— that number's high, obviously, uh, okay, pick a number— how— however many millions of active members of the church there are, there are that many millions of different variations of how the restored gospel is lived. And that principle applies to the garment. And I remember when I I first heard that question change from night and day to as instructed in the temple, I remember saying to myself, okay, I'm going to remember exactly how I was instructed to wear the garment in the temple. I was instructed to wear it throughout my life. I wear the garment throughout my life. Now, if some bishop or stake president or General Authority wants to come back at me and say to me, okay, well, that's not what that means. You're not wearing it as much as you should. You shouldn't have taken it off for this activity. You should be making sure you're wearing it. I, I have the spiritual autonomy to make that choice myself, and so does every other member of the church. And I just can't stress that enough. And I, I, I, my heart breaks for the, particularly the women who really have had to suffer as a result of someone else's interpretation of how the garment should be worn, that they've had to forego wearing a wedding dress that was lovely and that they were told by some other church leader was too immodest because it didn't cover the garment lines. Or they've had to wear garment bottoms that have caused them health problems. That, that, you know, they should have the absolute freedom to modify or change how or if they wear some kind of some kind of underwear that's causing them health problems. They shouldn't be— it shouldn't be up to anybody else to make those kinds of personal adaptations and decisions. Uh, I— the, the only instruction that I hear with regard to garments in the temple is they are to be worn throughout your life, and that also that they will be a shield of protection to you. And that has been a wild sort of thing. I remember there was a 60 Minutes story that they did on the Church. They interviewed Steve Young, the quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers who was a member of the Church. They interviewed Dick Marriott, who was the head of the Marriott Hotel chain, and they asked them both about temple garments. Steve Young said, I don't wear temple garments while I'm playing football. They would get sweaty and awful. And I think that that would kind of be disrespectful to what their purpose is. And I remember in my mindset at the time, this is over 30 years ago, this is maybe 40 years. No, no, I was in MBA school at the time. So this was, this was probably about 25 years ago. And I remember thinking, Steve Young, you're not honoring your covenant. You should be wearing the garments while you're playing football. I mean, that was, that was my thought. But then Dick Marriott was asked, okay, well, you're told the garment is a shield of protection to you. And he says, it is. We went boating and there was a boating accident and there was a fire and I got a burn that went right up to my sleeve. And stopped at the garment line. And I remember just wanting to pull my hair out at that one. I thought, really? You think so? So just think this through, Dick Marriott. Think, think what you're saying here. You're saying that the Lord is only interested in the parts of your body and keeping those parts safe that are covered by this garment. So he's only interested in your torso not your extremities, and he's not interested in your head because your head isn't covered by the garment. So you could get a bullet right to your forehead, but the bullet would stop if it's shot to your heart. I mean, how stupid is that? How ridiculous is that? I have always interpreted, even as I'm sitting there judging Steve Young for doing something that I now think was absolutely his prerogative to do and was the right decision. But even back then, I thought any idea that this garment is magic, you know, that's the, that's the epithet everybody uses to describe the magic underwear. These are magic underwear and they're not. The reason they are a shield and protection to you is that they are a reminder of your covenants and there is safety in living according to your covenants. Not because the, the fabric is going to stop a bullet or is going to prevent flames from reaching up to your sleeves the way Dick Marriott said they would. That's just absolute nonsense. So if, if this— I, I do think this announcement is a very positive step. I, I think it will be a more positive step if people use it to recognize that they have the authority to claim their own spiritual autonomy, that they can decide, yes, you know what, these garments have a purpose. The purpose is to remind me of my covenants that I've made in the temple, and I am to wear them throughout my life. What that means, how I do that, frequency, activity, whatever other kind of criteria you want to apply to that, that is entirely up to me. It's not up to anybody else. And that's the case with everything in the gospel. It's interesting because we've signed up— we, we signed up for tithing declaration. It's now called declaration rather than settlement. Which is an interesting— we could probably do a whole episode on that. But it's always been interesting to me that when you go in and you are asked by your bishop, are you a full tithe payer? He has to accept your answer. There is no tithing audit. He does not ask to see your bank statements. Or your tax returns or determine, okay, well, is this gross or is this net? Or how are you— how are you calculating this? And I'm looking at your balance here and this doesn't seem high enough. Like, he's not allowed to do any of that. I think there are bishops who have done that or do do that, and they're out of line. The handbook instructs them that they are to accept the declaration of the member. Are you a full tithe payer? Your answer is, is yours to give, and the determination as to how that answer was arrived at is entirely yours. You have that spiritual autonomy. That's the case with every— that's the case with all the temple recommend questions. You know, when people ask the temple recommend questions, it's like, well, what does this mean? Are you honest in all your dealings? Which is That's the old question. The new question talks about striving to be honest. It's a longer question, and I think it's a better question. But I remember I used to waffle on my answer to that question. And finally, one stake president said, "The question is, are you honest in all your dealings? Yes or no?" And at the time, I thought, well, geez, that's really rude. You should be helping me sort of navigate this. And since then, I thought, no, you're right. You're right. That's the question. And I have to decide if I can answer it yes. And how I come to that decision, how I arrive at that conclusion, that's all me. I no longer go into a temple recommend and ever have a lengthy discussion on any of the questions, because as my uncle used to say, when he'd ever give a temple recommend interview, he said, these questions are far more about contemplation on your part than they are about judgment on my part. And, and I think that's the case with the garment. Coming back to the garment, how you choose to wear it, if you choose to wear it, how you justify that is between you and the Lord. And, and that's it. You have the autonomy to determine that. And, you know, so a sleeveless garment, I think that's wonderful. I think that's great. If there were circumstances where you felt like you needed to remove the garment, but you didn't because you felt you were going to be judged by somebody else, uh, hopefully this will be a signal to you that whatever somebody else thinks, even if it's a church leader, is not the issue. You have the autonomy to make that determination. Do you have the autonomy to make that decision? So that's my soapbox. What do you think?

I think this is fascinating. I wonder, as I listen to you, I wonder if you, if one decided not to wear the garment, are they breaking temple covenants? I don't think they are technically, although we get taught that we would be breaking temple covenants. But to your point, we don't make a covenant to where the temple both, you know, in the temple. Two things in regards to the questions. They have changed the questions, as you know, in the temple recommend interview questions. And question 5, which says the Lord has said that all things are to be done in cleanliness before him. The two questions there are, do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? That's a change from when I was, you know, in asking those questions. And the other one is, do you obey the law of chastity? And then if you look at the questions related to the garments in the Temple Recommended Review, questions which have been updated, the questions are, do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? And do you honor your sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory audiences. And then they've also updated, it appears they've updated that additional supplementary information that as bishops and state presidents we used to read during the interview, and I'll read it here. He says that the garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. When you put on your garment, you put on a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ. Wearing it, wearing it is an outward expression of your inner commitment to follow him. Remember those, um, teachings? The garment is also a reminder of your temple covenants. You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible. As you keep your covenants, including the sacred privilege The wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances, you'll have greater access to the Savior's mercy, protection, and strength and power. So as I read that, that in my mind at least does tie the temple ordinance to, and the covenants to wear the, the, the holy garment, the priesthood garments. That's what they are. And not wearing them is a breach of those covenants. That's what I, that's my interpretation. But technically, we not, you know, to your point, down to our own discretion and our interpretation. I guess technically if we didn't wear the garments or often wear them at all, I suppose we could still, we're still upstanding, we're still worthy, we still can go to the temple. We're not in breach of any, you know, any covenants technically because we don't make a specific covenant for that. Um, the other thing that really I want to highlight as well that really pissed me off, actually, um, excuse my language there, was, um, you know, we talk about, you know, we've had it drummed into us that the garment is a power of, you know, represents the power of the covenants in our progression. And we've said just earlier that it's an outward expression of an inward, uh, personal commitment to Jesus Christ. And we were taught how sacred those garments were, you know, reminder of the covenants, protection from evil, our expression of commitment. And yet a few years ago, to my alarm and discomfort personally, the church published pictures of the garment, my underwear, my sacred personal underwear in a publication, quite there in the open showing the stuff that I wore. I was really pissed off by that because why do I, you know, something so personal to me on a personal level, why do I want people who, you know, every, everyone on the planet, every Tom, Dick, and Harry learning all about the, my underwear, the sacred underwear that I wear. I, no one asked me if it's okay to publish, you know, pictures of my underwear that I wear, this sacred, special, unique, distinct underwear. If it was just some briefs or something on, you know, a catalog or whatever that everybody wears, whatever, that's fine. But this is supposed to be, this is very personal, very personal to me. You know, this is me sharing my personal feelings on this subject. Other people might feel differently, but I took exception to the church making that unilateral decision to post photographs, pictures of my personal underwear in a publication that could be read by anyone. I, and no one asked me if it was okay. I really, that angered me. And I'm like, um, okay, they, they're under pressure cuz it's all over the internet. You know, Mormons wear sacred, magical, um, Harry Potter magical underwear, wherever, right? You know, what is this strange, weird thing that they're wearing? And they, they probably got asked loads of questions about the underwear and it was all over the internet. You and I've seen those comments, right? And for me it was okay, fine, talk, talk. You could, you know, when I was active, they could talk about stuff like that. It doesn't mean that I have to talk about them. It doesn't mean that, you know, I need to engage in a conversation about my underwear. Why, why would I talk to me about my underwear, right? You know, just, you go to work and people talk about your underwear. I mean, that's completely inappropriate. Yet here the church is publishing photographs, images of, you know, my personal underwear that I wear, you know, the kind of underwear that we all wear in the church, active in the church. And I thought that was completely wrong. I think that was disrespectful. I think it was inappropriate. And I'm not the only one that thinks like that because, you know, when I was, when did this come out, this, When did they publish that, Jim Bennett? Can you remember?

I don't remember the exact time, but it wasn't just the garments. They also published pictures of temple clothing. You know, the apron, the robe, the—

He did. Yes, they did. Yes, they did.

And then they put out these videos that were— that describe the temple ceremony. They describe it as a ritual reenactment of the creation and that you are you liken yourself to Adam and Eve and you go through and you make the covenants. They've been far more open about what goes on in the temple. And it wasn't just that we were not supposed to talk about the garments. We weren't supposed to ever talk about any of that. We would get in trouble if we mentioned any of those kinds of things. And now it's out there on the internet for anybody. My reaction to it was exactly the opposite of yours. I was like, Wonderful. Thank you for being open. Thank you for being transparent. So it's really interesting that your reaction— I had not thought to react in the way that you did.

Yeah, I couldn't stand it. I thought, what the heck is going on? And I appreciate you reminding me and our listeners here that the church— and I've got the announcement here or the information on the church website about temple garments, the religious clothes. They talk about all the things that you've just said, of course, you know, temple, temple garments, and they're talking about the temple robes and there's, you know, they put pictures of the temple clothing. I, I was uncomfortable with that also because it looks very, you know, to the non-member, you know, I've got a lot of non-members, you know, I, I joined the church as a teen, but regardless, working, my colleagues, you know, most of the people I work with are not members of the church. I'm not, I don't live in Salt Lake. I don't live in, in Provo, you know, not everybody's a member of the church on my, corner, you know, round near where I live at all by any means. And so, you know, what I did in the temple was very private and very personal. I didn't want people knowing about that. I, you know, if they wanna talk about on the internet and guess or, you know, make these assumptions, that's up to them. I didn't, I wasn't comfortable talking about that. I was certainly uncomfortable talking about, you know, temple underwear, for goodness sake. Whoever made that decision at the church leadership is, uh, Well, if you're listening, it's inappropriate. I think you made a mistake. Anyway, interesting that we come from, you know, I was converted to the church and I grew up without the, you know, wearing the temple garments or any knowledge of the temple ceremonies. And I come from it from a completely, you know, non-Mormon perspective. And that was my reaction when I saw those pictures and read that material on the church website. And you grew up with it all and you were okay with it. So it's interesting that everybody has a different experience, you know, to, you know, to what was going on there. But I think, you know, me, in my perspective now, I, you know, having left the church, my perspective's completely changed on this whole thing. I don't, I don't wear those garments. They don't really mean anything to me. And by the way, you know, when you, just for our listeners, if they don't know, You know, when you wear out your garments, you're not allowed just to throw them in the bin. You have to cut out the symbols in case someone takes them and wears them and, and, and uses them or misuses them. You're supposed to cut out the actual symbols with scissors and destroy the symbol separately somewhere else. And so, and then once you do so, the garment loses all power, by the way. So when the symbols are removed, cut out, the garment is just a worldly garment. They mean nothing. And you can't, you are not allowed, you are discouraged from throwing the garments away without cutting out those symbols. And I don't know if our listeners are, are aware of that, but that is something that, um, I discussed and shared as a bishop, having received direction from the Stake Presidency to give that kind of instruction. So once you throw your garments away, you can do that only after you've cut out the symbols and removed any evidence or signs of the— of those symbols in your garments. So the changes, I think, are good. You know, if we fast forward to 10 years, will the church announce or show that we've got a new bra for the ladies? I know just a normal regular bra with the symbols on and a pair of, you know, forgive the words, a pair of knickers with the symbols on. Is that where we are heading? That might be 20 years away, but I think that might be where this is going, but we'll see. So I think overall it's a positive change. It doesn't mean anything to me anymore, but it certainly will to— I'd be interested to wonder what the more traditional orthodox senior member thinks about these changes to the Guard because they grew up in a very different time, even long before you and I, you know, folks who are much older than I who go through all these changes. Be fascinating to get their take on this.

Well, I've gotten the take of one of them, my mother. She was over here for dinner last night and she thinks it's great. It's like, that's great. I mean, there's no heartbreak or angst about it. She's just sort of rolling with it. I had forgotten, actually, that you're supposed to cut out the marks on your garments. What does that say about me? I may be in serious trouble.

You have to go retrieve, wherever you dumped them or left them or threw them away, you have to go recover them now, otherwise you will be accountable under pain of death.

So, all right, well, I'm looking forward to that. That should be interesting. No, this has been a really interesting discussion. And the only thing I wanna say here, the conclusion, is, is the, the, this, um, this highlights also another issue, um, the whole idea that the church doesn't change, or that there are eternal principles that don't change. Doctrine never changes, that's the thing we're told. And, and it does, it does, and we can demonstrate that it does And instead of openly acknowledging that it does, we say, well, that was never really doctrine to begin with. You know, all those things you were taught about the garment, that it was this modesty shield, or that you were not allowed to show it to anybody, or that— I mean, these were all things that I have been taught as if they were fundamental principles of the gospel. That these new changes now illustrate, no, they weren't. They weren't fundamental principles of the gospel. They were tradition, or they were culture, or they were just wrong. And now here we are moving towards something else, and we've changed. And the church tries so hard to prop up this illusion that there are never any changes. When the church changes all the time. And I think that a healthy and sustainable faith allows for that, accepts that, embraces that, and, and takes responsibility for that. So anybody who's upset about the new garment, um, I hear you. I can understand the— your frustration with the pain of what's happened in the past.. And I would very much like to see the church acknowledge that. I don't think they will. Uh, hopefully this, I, I think will be a catalyst for many people to reclaim their spiritual autonomy and say, okay, this garment is sacred to me. And what that means at it being sacred to me is between me and the Lord. So with that, I think we're gonna wind up here. Uh, Uh, very much appreciate this discussion with you. Very much appreciate all of you who are listening. Please make sure to subscribe to our podcast so you can be notified when a new episode comes out. We're very glad to have you along for the ride. And until next time, uh, we hope to see you again on Inside Out. Thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim.