Talk:Temple garment

Members not instructed to wear garments day and night
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!

False claims about the garment
I just undid a change in this article about the wearing of the temple garment because the reason for the change was incorrect. So I wanted to post a reminder here about what the official sources say, since the change I just reverted claimed that the handbook and his personal membership in the Church verifies the changes he attempted to make. As to the reasons supporting my revert over his removal, I'd refer anyone here with questions to a more careful reading of section 38.5.5, entitled "Wearing and Caring for the Garment". In particular, the pertinent text of that section reads as follows:

"The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment.

"The garment should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment. It should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing.

"The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment."

That does not mean what the editor in question said it did. About the only thing that was correct in the edit in question was the fact that the Church has adjusted the wording about the wearing of the temple garment from "night and day" to instead being "as instructed in the endowment." Anyways, that was my two-fold reason for the reent revert. Any further discussion on this is welcome, but I think to the extent that we can, we should avoid asserting that a source says something when it in fact does not. Thanks again, all. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"worn by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement after they have taken part in the endowment ceremony." No, not quite correct. The wearing of garments is intiated as part of the "washing and anointing" ceremony which a different ritual.

Who introduced the garment in the 1800's?
This request is directed to improvement of the article. I'm interested in the history of the introduction of the garment to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Your article did have some of this history in it but could you tell me which prophet/leader introduced the garment? Were they told about the garment by God or took the idea from studying the Bible? Was there instructions from God what the garment was too look like at the time of the introduction of the garment to the current L.D.S. faith? I can't seem to find answers to these questions anywhere, and I believe some people including myself would find it interesting. Thanks for considering my requested and as always learned much more about this topic thanks to your efforts. 75.174.155.29 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Highly Inappropriate Content
Good day, I'm just writing to inform the moderators of this article that it contains highly inappropriate content, displaying a picture of the actual clothing that members of the faith consider sacred and not to be displayed for viewing by those who have not also taken on the promises that need to be made to be worthy to wear the clothing. This is not the type of behavior that should be tolerated in an objective and respectful source of information. 67.2.31.58 (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The photos of which you speak are acceptable for inclusion, per Wikipedia policies and were provided courtesy of the Church, so they meet the threshold for inclusion. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the info on wikimedia commons this photo was NOT provided "courtesy of the Church" but rather has a dubious copyright authorization: "The use of this photo was granted to me by the owner of the copyright, a Mr. Packham on 11/11/06." We are unable to verify this copyright because there is no first name of the purported copyright owner. If anyone has evidence that this was provided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please provide the same.  Othewise, we agree with the previous talker and believe this content should be removed. Hot Dog (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be the late Richard Packham (he died last April at 90.) "Provided courtesy of the Church" doesn't make much sense; the original photo comes from Packham's website. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Richard Packham is not a "neutral" source of information, it is obvious from his web page that his goal was to attack and defame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its adherents. This content was highly innapropriate, is not in good taste, and is offensive to a large audience: the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The photos have been removed for those reasons. Hot Dog (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So what if he's not neutral? The absolute only issue here is, "is the image properly licensed". Wikipedia is not censored. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 04:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the only issue here, the photo is not in good taste and is offensive to a large audience. The photo does not display a "neutral point of view" but rather is part of an effort to demean or embarrass the adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It violates the NPOV standard: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and...without editorial bias, all the significant views..." I am removing the photo again.  Please do not revers my edit.  Thank you. Hot Dog (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There is no violation of WP:NPOV. We have pictures all over Wikipedia that are offensive to some audience. We have pictures of Mohammad. We have pictures of Baháʼu'lláh. Adherents of the relevant religions don't want those pictures up. We also have pictures of penises and vaginas and all sorts of different sex acts. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED: Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect nominated for deleation
I have nominated the ‘Magical Underwear’ redirect for deletion. This redirect is inappropriate and offensive, often confusing people. The term ‘magical underwear’ is frequently used as an insult. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)