Talk:Temple garment/Archive 8

Commercial availability
After reading Under The Banner of Heaven, our book club discussed reference material members used while reading. Several Mormon-related articles on Wikipedia were helpful, but apparently there are several that need updating (we have several former Mormons in our ranks). Notably, the Wikipedia article about garments seems to have factual problems. The group recommended that people update Wikipedia. Maybe that was a naive suggestion, as none of us have ever tried this before. Our meeting was this morning, but I've actually come back to our meeting room here at the library because my blackberry started blowing up. Apparently two members remained at the library today and in the past hour or so were banned from Wikipedia--after trying to update the temple garment entry.

I've been reading through the rules and guidelines for Wikipedia, and there certainly are a lot of guidelines. I just finished reading the discussion here on the talk page. Actually I also read the criticism by Kww (who did the banning), and a handful of other members. Aside from accusations of sock-puppetry, I think the comments made by the veteran editors are completely fair. It makes sense that any commercially-related edits would be discussed first, before they get posted to a page. Somewhere I just read that Wikipedia wants to avoid pages becoming "glorified advertisements." That makes sense. So if a group of editors find consensus for an addition of some significance, the appropriate language is discussed and added.

That makes sense, but now about my colleagues: The more senior Wikipedia editors involved seem pretty reasonable. So this question goes to you...what should they do to get un-blocked (re-enabled)? They have legitimate concerns of accuracy they would like to discuss. No doubt they have something of significance they will contribute in the spirit of wiki-editing.Exmoboard (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you point out any inaccuracies here first? Believe me, we've been over this article with a fine toothed comb for many years. I personally do not see any inaccuracies in the article. The history is accurate. The current use is accurate. Even the controversies are accurate and balanced from both sides. Bring it up here first, please. Thanks! Regards, -- Man way  00:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm conferring with the former Mormons (still banned, btw), and they say that the line "In Mormon folklore, tales are told of Latter-day Saints who credit their temple garments with helping them survive car wrecks, fires, and natural disasters" is misleading. In the temple ceremony called the "Initiation," when Mormons first receive the temple garment, Mormons are told explicitly that the garment will be a physical and a spiritual "shield and protection."


 * The reference they wanted to make to eBay seems redundant, considering that such a reference is already found at the end of the "Sacredness to members" section.


 * They contend that there is a significant omission in the section called "Design." Their concern is that this section lacks any reference to the patterns that Mormons could buy (a few decades ago) to make their own temple garments. This contention seems meritorious. Furthermore, and this is at the heart of complaints against them, the temple garments are now available for purchase online by anyone. Consequently the end of the section called "design" is now outdated. Actually, I tend to agree with them that in its current form, the article is misleading. It reads, "Endowed church members can purchase garments through Church distribution centers worldwide, through the mail, and online" with no mention that non-Mormons can buy the garments online. Indeed non-Mormons can buy temple garments from an online retailer purportedly using the exact same patterns to make the temple garments. In which case, the appearance of this retailer and thus general commercial availability, that is an historical first.Exmoboard (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response! Nice to know there are still people here who enjoy civil discourse. Let's take this one step at a time.


 * I am a former mormon. Been through the Temple many times. I no longer consider myself under any vow of secrecy, by the way. Your first point: The wording in the endowment states that the garment ... "will be a shield and a protection to you inasmuch as you do not defile it, and if you are true and faithful to your covenants." States nothing about physical or spiritual. It's up to the individual adherant to make that assumption.


 * Ebay point: I'll look. You may have a point there.


 * Making your own garments? It's been at least 80 years since you could do that. It is mentioned that Beehive Mills was founded in the 1930s. Could be worth a mention, though. Let me see what I can come up with. (ETA: Added a line about that.)


 * The commercial concern: I'm absolutely certain that the LDS church would not consider any garment sold by this commercial concern as an "authorized garment." (Like they could tell the difference unless they looked at the label!) My point is that the only authorized garment is sold through the church distribution, at quite a markup in price, despite what they claim. So I don't think the commercial concern belongs here, since it is not an "authorized" garment.


 * Thanks again. Discussion is always welcome. Kind regards. -- Man way  01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Manway, if you can substantiate your edit with a source, feel free to add it back after I revert it. I agree that it is probably true, but it still needs a citation: without it, it violates WP:OR. Exmoboard, I've already blocked three of your accounts. I'm blocking this fourth one as well. Goodbye.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Pre-made garments have previously been commercially available outside of the Church distribution/Beehive clothing; just look thru the advertisements for them in editions of the Improvement Era from the 1920's & 1930's. For example see: . On page 637 is an ad for pre-made LDS garments from Mose Lewis and on page 639 is a similar but larger ad for pre-made LDS garments from the Salt Lake Knitting Store. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Magic underwear" term
As mentioned above, it is common to find references to Temple garments in popular (non-Mormon) usage as "magic underwear" or similar. Although this term is undeniably derogatory and arguably misleading, there is a reasonable case to be made for mentioning the usage in the article if only to distinguish it from a more accurate description. (Wikipedia has neutral descriptions of many far more derogatory terms, such as the N-word.) A few references for this terminology (most of which I found with Factiva, since Google mainly turns up things like blogs that may be questionable as sources):


 * Anthony Ventre, Should 'Magic Underwear' Disqualify a Presidential Candidate?, Yahoo! News (15 Feb. 2011).
 * Paul Harris, "World: Mormonism in the spotlight as Romney's campaign brings church centre stage: With two Mormons contending for the presidency and a growing media profile, the church has never been so popular - nor so closely scrutinised.", The Observer (16 Oct. 2011). ' ... Take Natalie Hill, 30, a Broadway dancer. ... She is happy to confirm that she wears temple garments - though not when she is working. "I know people call them 'magic underpants', but I don't wear them on stage," she laughs.
 * Joy Behar, "Interview with Donny and Marie; Interview with Barry Manilow," CNN Headline News: The Joy Behar Show (29 August 2011). ... BEHAR: Cheers. All right. So, explain the magic underwear to me because that I don`t know about. D. OSMOND: You know what, I`d rather not. I`ll tell you why. ...
 * Barry Paris, "SCANDAL-MONGERING MANIA A MEANINGLESS, YET ENJOYABLE, MOVIE ON THE SEXUAL EXPLOITS OF A FORMER MISS WYOMING", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (25 August 2011). ... There, she handcuffed him to a bed "spread- eagled," ripped off his "magic underwear" (a kind of Mormon chastity belt), and worked to reverse his alleged brainwashing and impotence by forcing him to have sex with her for three days. ...
 * Jennifer Dobner, "Mormon Defense League aims to educate journalists, politicos about Utah-based faith's beliefs," Associated Press (4 August 2011). Misinformation or misperceptions about Mormonism -- including that faithful Latter-day Saints wear "magic underwear" or still practice polygamy -- stem from a lack of understanding of the church's history, doctrine and culture, Gordon said.
 * Tresa Edmunds, "Mormon underwear keeps body and soul together", Guardian Unlimited (1 March 2011). I get a lot of questions about my 'magical' underwear, but our garments are just like a Christian cross or a Jewish yarmulke.
 * Jo-Ann Greene, "Mormon Memoir Is No 'Sex And The Single Girl'", Lancaster New Era/Intelligencer Journal/Sunday News (11 April 2010). Still, the topic arises soon enough because Baker really tries to live her faith, all the while questioning and testing it. People ask her if she's a polygamist, wears magic underwear, believes in dinosaurs (no, no, yes).
 * Scott D. Pierce, "It's a Mormon in the 'House'", Deseret News (30 October 2007). You've got to wonder if the "House" writers would have dared take on the pope the way they took on Joseph Smith in this episode. Or if they'd mock things that are sacred to Protestants, Jews or Muslims the way they did temple garments (calling them "magic underwear").

In short, there seem to be ample reputable published sources regarding this terminology. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The use of the term is not scholarly and your above references demonstrate this point. It is simply a derogatory term and as such is not used unless to identify it as such. You will not find LDS using the term. Who uses the term? Those who are anti-Mormons and their sole purpose to the destruction of the LDS Church. Personally, I have no problem using the term as long as it is identified for what it is, a derogatscholarly In a shcolarly article it has no place other than a list of terms, both accurate and crude. Picking this one term out is interesting when there are so many others. If it were not included would the article be less correct or less complete? What would be lost if it was not included? Who benefits if included? Is the reader benefited in any scholarly manner or is (s)he fed the offensive term du jour? -- Storm  Rider  12:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you'd prefer Holy Underwear? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_underwear&redirect=no and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magic_underwear&redirect=no. Those are probably enough coverage.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pun intended? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not limit itself to describing "scholarly" or non-derogatory terms (as pointed out above, one can find many articles on derogatory terms in WP). Nor do we limit ourselves to the viewpoint of a religious group in articles about that religious group. WP:NOTCENSORED.  A neutral description of a derogatory/jocular term in widespread usage, with plenty of documentation in reputable sources, needs to be in the article.  A redirect is not a description in the article, and hence does not suffice.  Who benefits?  Consider the reader who has heard the term "magic underwear" and wants to know if that is connected with the subject of the article (or didn't know, and now has learned what all the jokes actually refer to).   — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SGJ is correct, WP isn't limited to describing only "polite" terms. I especially agree with his final point: a reader looking for information should be able to find it here, even if some are uncomfortable with the term or offended by it. Doc  Tropics  02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a lot more research on my part, I'm uncertain if the reference is NPOV on an atheist standpoint. It's suspiciously similar to similar to terms utilized by atheists in their derision of any faith. I'll admit, I've never heard the term before though, in all 51 years of my life. I'll also say, I was raised Christian am more a deist today. Thoughts from those more acquainted with the term and who utilizes it?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This Article Is Completely Inappropriate
Discussion of the sacred garment is not appropriate in a public forum. Just because some people were able to mine information (some of it incorrect and misleading,) does not mean it should be presented for general discussion. Should military secrets be published because they are discovered? Ask the wiki leaks guy that question from his anticipated prison cell. Should the voting process and discussions that happen in the Vatican (behind closed doors) be published because of things overheard, recordings or leaks? Certainly not. Of course I am tempted to remove the entire article but am positive any number anti-Mormons who have contributed so far would just revert back to the previous version and round and round it would go. Life is too short for that. Maybe the community should just do the right thing and remove this article because: 1. It is factually incorrect 2. No knowledgeable and faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will correct it and 3. Because it is wrong to discuss sacred things in this forum. Discussing the garment here is nothing less than an attempt to mock the religion by "revealing" (again, incorrectly) by disclosing presumed correct information that is NOT supposed to be generally known. No doubt the detractors will slam me for this position... but so it goes.Jbillh (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an old argument that has been discussed many times before. Please see the talk page archives listed at the top of the page to see what has already been discussed, so you could then hopefully add something new/fresh to this stale topic. - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional discussions on this and similar topics has occurred on Talk:Endowment (Mormonism) and Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints), which are now archived (link to archives are found at top of each page). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Talk:Undergarment has some useful discussion on related points. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So are we supposed to take comfort that this has all been talked about in other talk pages and therefore discussing sacred and private things in a public forum is somehow ok? This page should NOT exist! That is my point. It is an afront to this and any other religion or group that private things are made public not to mention with all of the notable inaccuracies! This page should come down. Jbillh (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTCENSORED - especially this part: "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." Ain't gonna happen, Bill. Wikipedia does not have to play by your rules or the religion's rules. -- Man way  01:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is if you want to be successful in doing anything here besides useless venting, you need to educate yourself how WP works, and be familiar with the related discussions that have already taken place. One definition of madness is to repeat the same action multiple times while expecting a different result; if you want to be successful in making lasting contributions here, you won't be able to do it by repeating the same failed attempts that others have made in the past. Here are a few other things you also might want to consider: Best of luck. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) MormonWiki.com, the free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members, by the More Good Foundation -- in case you decide you can't work with non-Mormons in discussing topics relating to Mormonism
 * 1) MormonWiki.com, the free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members, by the More Good Foundation -- in case you decide you can't work with non-Mormons in discussing topics relating to Mormonism
 * 1) MormonWiki.com, the free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members, by the More Good Foundation -- in case you decide you can't work with non-Mormons in discussing topics relating to Mormonism
 * 1) MormonWiki.com, the free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members, by the More Good Foundation -- in case you decide you can't work with non-Mormons in discussing topics relating to Mormonism
 * 1) MormonWiki.com, the free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of faithful members, by the More Good Foundation -- in case you decide you can't work with non-Mormons in discussing topics relating to Mormonism
 * Also, FAIR (one of the principle LDS apologetics organizations) doesn't agree that the topic of garments shouldn't be discussed publicly, even though they are very circumspect about how they discuss it. See:.
 * Non-Mormons (including those involved with Mormon studies), ex-Mormons, and Mormons who have not received temple endowments have no binding promises in place regarding non-disclosure of temple matters, including the garment. One can only impose their own covenant obligations on someone else, especially without consent, by exercising unrighteous dominion and improperly limiting agency. Any such action is not in harmony with the established doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another item to consider: see sections "Gospel Extremism" and "Elevating Rules over Doctrine" in . -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, Jbillh, some may be unaware of the temple garment and share quarters with the owner, resulting in a misunderstanding when laundry is done. I served with a few LDS followers over the years, but didn't share quarters, hence I was unaware of the temple garment until someone else had mentioned it. While YOU may be uncomfortable discussing the private attire, that doesn't mean it's an unmentionable matter for reasonable education of those who are unaware of the LDS faith.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, as a Freemason I can't help but step in here. You don't see us throwing a tantrum over discussion of things that may or may not be part of our 'secrets' and may or may not break any vows to secrecy, and our rituals are identical to the rituals that Joseph found on magical tablets viewable by magic X-ray specs given to him by angels and totally not the little books that belonged to the dead Freemason husband of the woman he married with all the missing words we omit for secrecy being replaced with random made up words.

I freely admit it is purely coincidence that our initiation ritual is hundreds of years older than yet identical to your Inner Temple ritual (and won't go into the details here), but should someone address the fact that Joseph may have incidentally stolen verbatim all of the rituals used in Freemasonry at that time (and inadvertently give themselves away as a Freemason for knowing what the missing words were that Joseph got wrong as they are--as I said earlier--left out in our books!) the Craft nor myself would benefit any by me attacking him or angrily saying he is breaking MY sacred oath by abandoning his own.

Relax. Wikipedia can be a confusing and daunting new place with strange new rules and ban happy admins. It's best you chill out and watch how things work here, or read up on it more, before jumping in guns blazing or you're likely to just end up arbitrarily perma life IP banned for some god awful poor reason then spend the next three years trying to get unbanned. Then what kind of good or contribution will you serve then? Nothing, nada, zip! The above users have given you some remarkable advice that many users do not have the opportunity to read, even -I- as a Wiki veteran have learnt some things reading over the above. So give them a thorough read, and as I said, relax.

(Edit: I just noticed the date of the last comment by said editor above, but I'll leave this here for prosperity in case another DONT DRAW MY MOHAMMED type rocks up wanting the magic underwear (what non-mormons tend to know them as, not 'only anti-mormon extremists' as the further above conversation claimed, I like mormons, but even I knew them as this for most of my adult life, and they're underwear that possess supernatural powers so it makes flawless sense) removed from Wikipedia.) BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Floating garments image (again)
I know this was discussed above, and probably before that too, but I'm not super clear about why we use this image (#1) rather than this one (#2). I understand that it's weird and a little creepy to have a picture of people in their underwear (#2), but the floating one is also creepy in another, kind of unnatural way (#1). Both images seem to be identical as to the representation of the garments itself—one shows the reality of how they look on people (#2) and the other shows them in a quite abstract manner (#1). What are the reasons for preferring #1? Would users support using #2 instead? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No comments on this? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In my personal editorial judgment, I prefer image#1 because it focuses attention on the garments. Once you add the people, my attention is drawn to the people in the garments (are the LDS members? Are they making some kind of political or religious statement by displaying the garments? etc).-- Mojo Hand (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The wallpaper has to go. If the people are collateral damage, so be it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Black or otherwise non-intrusive backgrounds are not uncommon when depicting objects on WP (e.g. see the first image of almost every article at the root level of Category:Chemical elements). I find the background on #2 so appalling that I support editing that out. Separately, editing out the people is really not that different than putting the clothing on a tailor's dummy and then photographing the dummy using a neutral or hidden background. Editing the people out also helps support focusing on the objects being depicted, instead of the more puerile "these are people in their underwear" aspect. Additionally #1 has been at least partially color corrected, where the original #2 is not. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments—good to know that #2 still has general support. This clarifies things for me somewhat. (I laughed at the wallpaper comment—so true ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the real reason is that #1 replaced #2 is because #2 was found to be significantly more offensive to LDS members than #1. Given two equally encyclopedic and free images, there is no reason not to display the least offensive image. This is true when we are dealing with an article on feces, on sex, and on religion. Many LDS members expressed the idea that #1 with the exposed flesh shown was significantly more offensive to their beliefs than #2. I have always thought that an image of the garments on dress forms would be the optimal image for this article. However we must choose between what free content images that are available on the subject. So while the floating image is sub-optimal it is the best choice given all considerations from free content to the feelings of those people most closely connected to this subject. The archives have much on this subject, but here is are some main points to review. The practical impact of all this is that when the article is less offensive to LDS members the edit-warring is very reduced and the article does not need to be kept under semi-protection. Birgitte  SB  00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know that we want to suggest that edit-warring can get us to change article content, but I do agree that using the less offensive image is a valid consideration. Plus, that wallpaper really is hard to look at.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion as a Former Mormon, I doubt that the LDS in general find image #2 to be offensive. If any individuals do find it so, perhaps it is a generational thing. That the photo is amateurish is unquestionable. That floral pattern isn't wallpaper, by the way. It's a bedspread, or something similar, tacked up as a background - see the draping on the viewers left. It was a good try on the photographer's part, but not an effective choice. The Photoshopping removes the distracting flowers and concentrates attention on the garments, but by doing so, also draws attention to the male and female protuberances. For that reason alone, I'm surprised to hear that version #1 is deemed the less offensive. B^) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "protuberances" you seem to be concerned with are little different than what could be found on various display or tailor's dummies, and are really less "puerile" than the other photo with the awful background, and the people obviously modeling; that image to my eye removed any option for suspension of disbelief (conscious or unconscious) of what those shapes are covering, making the bulges far more noticeable then when the people (and horrible background) are edited out. — Asterisk *  Splat → 02:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

LDS Church released a video explaining
FYI: According to an AP article found on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/mormon-magic-underwear-video_n_6025828.html?cps=gravity, the CJCLDS has released a video on YouTube showing and explaining the temple robes and the undergarments (though the examples are not modeled by people). They are compared to various garments worn in other religions. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A better source for this information would be the LDS Newsroom itself. Check out this article. This can be used to clean up the article and clear up any misconceptions that exist. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia purposes, per WP:SOURCE the third-party source (AP article) is better to use than the primary source itself (LDS Church/LDS Newsroom). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the subject/Article is inappropriate in Wikipedia. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the article temple garment, or are you referring to the Huffington Post article being discussed, or something else? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In principle, and per policy, primary sources are still good sources for documenting the subject's beliefs, opinions, and uncontroversial facts. They are not good if they are overly self-promotional, nor good for establishing the notability of the subject, but that's not an issue here.
 * This situation parallels a biography in which the subject's own official website is quoted, and is ALSO listed as an EL. This would serve fine as a source for content AND as an EL. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, excellent 'E'xternal 'L'ink. (Also.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that the topic headline I wrote was censored by AsteriskStarSplat in a revision dated 01:55, 23 October 2014. This violates the Wikipedia policy of TALKO. There is nothing wrong or "impolite" with the phrase. After all, this is the Talk Page, not the main article, so we are allowed to be more informal here. In my time in the Church, living in Colorado Springs, Colorado, I heard LDS members refer to them in a variety of ways: "Temple garments", "Temple underwear", "Temple undies", and yes, "the undies". I will make the user a deal - if she/he refrains from censoring my Talk page posts, I vow to never to edit hers/his. I corrected the vandalism done to the title by removing this: LDS Church released a video explaining . If there had been no added posts, I would have simply reverted the page.


 * I never once thought that the Huffington Post would be used as a citation, only that it was a heads up for interested parties to find better, usable ones. I agree with Good Ol’factory in that good third party sources are desirable. As an encyclopedia, we are mainly documenting the objective (so far as possible) coverage and thoughts concerning events, not endorsing the original activities/thoughts/words. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A closer review of wp:TALKO would have yielded the following: "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial."

I didn't violate wp:TALKO in what I did, nor did you by changing it back; we obviously disagree, and are now discussing that disagreement. However you were wrong in characterizing this as vandalism, and I ask that you withdraw that accusation.

Otherwise I stand by the comment I made in the edit summary, that "it's impolite to disrespect Jewish religious clothing by calling a Tallit a towel, or a yarmulke a beanie, so no need for the comparable disrespect here". To elaborate, the section heading is needlessly insensitive and provocative and the name I changed it to ("LDS Church released a video explaining") is a far better description than your preferred version ("The Church has released a video explaining the undies - 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)"). I will leave it to others to comment on this before making any changes here myself. — Asterisk *  Splat → 20:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I accept that we could (and probably should) change the header, given its nature. It is comically clueless at best, and deliberately inflammatory at worst. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * given that I gave you notice on your talk page that I have replied to your statement above, and since you have you have edited other pages since then without making any additional comments here, am I to assume that you either have no further interest in this discussion, have nothing more you wish to say, or are quietly acquiescing to the points that have been made here? — Asterisk  *  Splat → 21:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * since there have not been replies by you to either of my inquiries, I've changed the section heading back to my earlier wording. — Asterisk *  Splat → 00:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Mormon fundamentalism?
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.&mdash;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?&mdash;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"
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". - Storm  Rider  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)

Manufacture
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&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Bolding "Magic Underwear" in lead
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, 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&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 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&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 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&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 03:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)