As I said... you get the garments the first time through the temple. Sorry if you were confused.

I assure you that there are no girls at your local highschool who wear temple garments. The temple is adults only. She may be wearing something under there but it isn't garments. Maybe you could let me know who she is and I'll do my best Joseph Smith impersonation and try to find out what it is.

Some single adult women wear them. It is the exception however as Mormon girls are encouraged to marry (in the temple) as soon as possible. Witholding the temple from single girls is a good motivater to get them married.

Yes, they take them off to swim. And to play ward basketball because, as we know, those activities are more sacred than sex.

As a former momo I know that all sister missionaries must be temple endowed before leaving. So any former, unmarried sister missionary who is still drinking the koolaid wears garments, even if she never marries. Among the non-missionaries, Some women are allowed to go to the temple without marrying by special exception. Like ...."Bishop, look at my ass...I am never getting married."
or "You said if I simply never acted on my lesbian tendencies I could be a full member of the church".

You know, standard fare.

Koolaid? We're supposed to drink koolaid? I think I've missed something.

This kind of Kool-Aid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid

See reference regarding 'Jim Jones' and 'Jonestown'. These days, the phrase "drink the Kool-Aid" implies a a tendency to follow orders without regard for the personal sacrifice.

You're partly right. Military, police, fire and other officially uniformed personnel are able to get uniform-matching garments by special exception. That is, even when you catch a break, they are still literally up your ass about it.

The average temple-endowed Mormon however has no choice about their underwear.

I don't believe I ever claimed there was a rule about it. In fact, my point exactly was that despite it being a strictly cultural phenomenon, many many many Mormon men and women are fanatical about their garment wearing. I know this having been a Utah born-and-raised, temple married Mormon.

About women going to the temple before marriage. The fact is, it IS rare for a woman to have opportunity to go to the temple before marriage or a mission. If you were the exception, well... whoopidy doo.

You're right, most women are not fanatical to the point of not wearing maxi pads. If you read carefully, my point was that it was, in fact, rare. However, most are still fanatical to the point that they would rather die or divorce before taking them off.

The other fact is, it is all still a total load of crap to have those ridiculous piles of crap in MY bedroom.

So much to disagree with, so little time. But I must say this:
NO, it ISN'T rare for a woman to go to the temple before marriage or a mission. I was NOT the exception, so no whoopidy doo is necessary. It simply isn't rare. What else can I say? Where are you getting your facts?? When I went to the temple 14 years ago, half of the congregations's female population (unmarried females) had been to the temple. Others I know have had the same experience. It isn't rare, you are wrong, and this is a complete waste of time because it is your site so all you have to do all day is write back saying, "yes, it is rare" without any proof until your fingers fall off. That way you can "prove" that the church is oppressive to women or whatever else you want to make people falsely believe. What a nice life.

I swore I wouldn't come back to your site, but I got to feeling bad about using the words "Nut Job" in my subject line. I was just trying to be a smart aleck, and I apologize.

As long as you keep coming back... apology accepted.

Actually, when you went to the temple 14 years ago, ALL the females and males in attendance had been to the temple. See, you were IN the temple at the time.

You point is like saying that most women get breast cancer because all the women you met at the breast cancer clinic had it too, ergo, most women get it.

I get my facts from being and living among lifelong Mormons. Due to my family, social and work situations, fully 90% of the people I work, live and associate with are Mormons.

The Church Handbook of Instructions, the guidebook for local Bishops and Stake Presidents says the following about issuing temple recommends to members receiving their own endowment:

Members Receiving Their Own Endowment:

Instructions for issuing a recommend to a person who is receiving his or her own endowment are in the temple recommend binder. A man must hold the Melchizedek Priesthood to receive his temple endowment.
Most single members will be interviewed for a recommend for their own endowment when they are called as missionaries or when they are to be married in a temple. Worthy single members who have not received their endowment in connection with a mission or marriage may become eligible for a recommend interview when the bishop and the stake president determine that they are sufficiently mature to understand and keep the sacred covenants made in a temple. Such eligibility should be determined individually for each person rather than using routine criteria such as reaching a certain age or leaving home for college or employment.

So, as I said, it is not impossible to find single women who are endowed (tee hee) who never served a mission. It is, per policy, discouraged.

I have never once made the point that the LDS church is oppressive to women. I believe it is doctrinally and organizationally oppressive to all its members.

In the Count of Monte Cristo, Ah man.

Oh man...I just couldn't help myself could I? Here I am, back for more sparring. :-)

So....you seem really, really arrogant. Just an observation. I could be wrong.

So let's have at it:
OF FREAKIN' COURSE everyone in the temple had been to the temple. Don't insult me. When I said "congregation" I was talking about the WARD congregation. A single's ward. You seriously couldn't have even come up with that after 2 seconds thought? You had to insult me with your silly breast cancer analogy?

Your passage from the handbook proves nothing. Read it again. It never says anything that even suggests that it discourages individuals from attending the temple without marriage or a mission. You're using poor logic based on the word "most." When a passage says that something happens most of the time, it doesn't inherently mean that any other way is uncommon or discouraged. It just factually happens most of the time, because most (meaning more than 50%) Mormon women get married or go on a mission before the age of 23. I mean, seriously, read the passage again! Where does it say it is discouraged to give a recommend to women before marriage? It even gives the information to encourage it.

Maybe in Utah it is not the norm. I do not know because I am not from Utah. But in Arizona, California, and Ohio (where I have lived), MOST (Yes, MOST!!) women who have not been endowed by age 23 or so are encouraged by their bishops to prepare for the temple. Why is it so hard for you to wrap your mind around the idea that someone has a different experience than you? I don't know you, but could it be..... arrogance?

You have to admit that your original post has sweeping generalizations. Come on---admit it. You know it does. You use an urban legend about feminine hygiene products and then you rib about urban legends later on in the post ---- Heeee-larious! You use them when they work for you and dismiss them when they don't. Nice. And then you write about how women "have to wear the garments...in bed with their husbands" and then you get all over me (bad choice of words LOL) when I write there isn't a rule about wearing garments during sex. You state that you never used the word "rule". Oh please! What arrogance! You wrote the words! Stand by them and stop dancing around trying to win a war of semantics!

And finally, you wrote "Except in rare cases women do not receive the garment until marriage." I am telling you that it is not rare. You are wrong. Try to admit it. Try to say aloud, "It is not rare." Go on. Try. See if you can admit, for one tiny moment, that your own particular limited experience in Salt Lake City, Utah is not everyone's experience everywhere in the world. Rare is rare. What percentage is rare? I'd say most people would put "rare" at 1 or 2 percent. Are there more than 1 or 2 percent of non-married women who wear the garment? Of course. Many more. All I am asking is that you take a moment to go there mentally. Say it with me: "I was wrong. It is not rare." I won't even ask you to say the obvious continuation of that: "It is, in fact, common." GASP! That would make your head explode. So let's just stick with "I was wrong. It is not rare."

Non-married is just plain silly!

The experiences I write about are mine and mine alone. I own them wholly and stand by them. I'm sure you have a really sweet spirit but you are really barking up the wrong tree. Your experiences are yours and are duly noted here for all to see.

However, you will have to be much more clever, witty and compelling for me to admit I am wrong on this. I will not go around on this with you. You have stated your position several times. Stating it LOUDER and more often does not make it more convincing, just more annoying.

Thanks for playing. Now... move on. If you can.

I love it when Mormon women try to act "all cool like," as it were, using vernacular and even being so bold as to [appear to] fearlessly acknowledge innuendo, as if it didn't bother them to their squeaky-clean little souls. Wow, sister -- "freakin'"? How daring of you -- but now we know you are "for real," right?

So here's this woman, who has obviously faithfully obeyed Joseph F. Smith's admonition that broad-mindedness leads to apostasy and is therefore bad, trying to sound so hip and with-it as she fastens on some minor point, not necessarily essential to the substance of the argument, to show that the author is just so wrong.

It's as if these type of people just love showing themselves off as examples of how one can be totally church-minded and docile while still being, well, cool and so-smart. A real brave one, fearlessly LOLing at those anti's.

"""And then you write about how women "have to wear the garments...in bed with their husbands"..."

To further argue semantics:

"in bed" does not mean "during sex". My wife insists on wearing garments in bed, every single night. She takes them off for sex alone, and when we're done, before she falls asleep, she fastidiously puts them back on again.

There is no such thing as lying naked in bed holding each other while we go to sleep at my house. There is no afterglow to drift off in.

Although I can assume you don't have first-hand experience, do you have any idea how difficult it is to pry those things OFF in the middle of the night if you're feeling randy? My wife can pop one button on my boxers (or just reach up easily) and give me a hand job to wake me up and let me know she's interested. I, on the other hand, have to try to maneuver past two layers of tucked-in, tight cotton to try to return the favor on another night.

You can't tell me that's not romance-killing. Not that I don't go through the effort from time to time. But you just can't go down on your spouse to let her know you love her with two yards of white cotton stuffed in your mouth. You try stealing some midnight pussy from an armor-clad honey and then come back here and tell me I'm wrong ;)

"Write something true and then I'll get offended. :-)..."

Joseph Smith enjoyed the company of little girls.

In 1800s frontier America teenage girls 14-17 were not "little girls"...they were of marrying and child bearing age and many did marry...inside outside of Mormonism...inside and outside plural marriage, I'm sure. In many cases, life was just too hard and short to enjoy the pleasantries of extended youth that we do now.

So, your insinuation that he was some kind of pedophile just isn't applicable to Joseph Smiths cultural reality (which was very different than ours is now)...even outside of Mormonism.

I could go on and on about this.

I love how you simply dismiss the perverse overtone polygamy adds to the equation, for one. As if it were irrelevant that Smith's relationships to these little girls (there, I did it again) happened in secret and under threat of eternal damnation.

Secondly, the average age of first menstruation in American girls has been lowering, not raising. in 1840 the average age of puberty was 16. Today it is 12. If anything TODAY's girls are biologically ready much sooner, not later.

Thirdly, I will continue to apply today's cultural reality to Joseph Smith as long as others continue to apply his to me.

I think your argument is, in large part, a cop out. Own your religion's history instead of trying to justify it to me as if I should simply see what Smith did as perfectly normal.

"""In 1800s frontier America teenage girls 14-17 were not "little girls"...they were of marrying and child bearing age and many did marry..."""

Bullshit:

http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/utah_census.htm

The average marriage age was twenty-two. Among polygamists, no less. Among non-polygamists, it was -- and has remained for centuries -- around twenty-four.

"""So, your insinuation that he was some kind of pedophile just isn't applicable to Joseph Smiths cultural reality (which was very different than ours is now)...even outside of Mormonism."""

Marrying a fourteen-year-old girl is now and was then deviant behavior. Sixteen or seventeen years old was pushing it, even in frontier America. You are distorting history in order to justify the repellent behavior of Joseph Smith, and it's revolting.

"""Fourteen years ago I went through the temple at age 20---long before my marriage. And it wasn't "rare," as you stated. Your facts are entirely wrong."""

In 1991, the Church changed its policy on temple attendance (along with removal of acting out the most severe penalties in the endowment ceremony itself, the disembowelment and decapitation of attendees) to allow single women to go through the temple for themselves without an impending mission call or marriage. Previous to that time, it was only allowed through special exception for women who had no reasonable expectation of marriage. Get familiar with your history and then come back and tell Pete he's wrong.

It was a change nearly as profound as granting Blacks the Priesthood in 1978, yet the culture quietly changed underneath the policy.

Pretty soon, people will start telling me that there wasn't really ever any naked washing and anointing in the temple. I guess I'll have to believe them even though I experienced otherwise first-hand, because they say it so loudly.

*shudders*

So is your engaging personality.

It's a coincidence. Time to put it behind you.

Dear Disgusted,

First, pull your head out of your ass long enough to look over your shoulder and realize that Jesus doesn't have your back on this one.

Second, Do you know Korihor's identity? His wife's? If not, then these are merely the details of SOMEONE'S underwear and sex life.

Third, I imagine Korihor is capable of deciding for himself (as are we all) what he feels like sharing.

Fourth, come back again soon.

"""Korihor, how would your wife feel about your posts involving the intimate details of HER underwear and your sex life for everyone to see/read?"""

If I posted under my real name, with directions to my house, using her real name so that everybody knew exactly who I'm talking about, you bet she'd be unhappy. Heck, in our first year of marriage I joked with a mutual friend about "getting some" that morning, and that friend leaked it to her. Boy, that was a big tiff!

Now, what if I'm posting anonymously. What's my name? Who's my wife? Where do I live? How do you know me?

Without specific names and faces, you can talk about these kinds of issues openly and honestly. When you must worry about who you are going to offend by telling the truth, you can't solve the problems. You can only manage them.

"""Why on earth would a garment-wearing woman waste her time on trash like you?"""

Well, let's see:
1. I'm hella sexy.
2. I generally smell pretty good. Except when I've been mowing the lawn, and she tells me I smell even better then.
3. I make a good living.
4. I am in love with her.
5. She is in love with me.
6. We have several kids together.
7. We look out for each other and work hard every day to make each other happy.
8. I cook well.
9. The sex is great.
10. Because I'm not married to you, you insensitive clod.

I agree. I agree, only a jackass would post pictures of garments on the internet. The internet is made for underwear like this. Pictures of garments are a waste of valuable bandwidth.

Hmm... let me think about what it is I am trying to do here. I mean I've only had months since I originally posted this. Oh yeah. I'm trying to express my almost insufferable disdain for the ungodly ugliness and intimacy killing these undergarments bring to my world. If they don't do that to you, well, good for you. Rave about them on your own blog.

As for being anti-Mormon... Yeah... so what? I was once very much pro-Mormon. My opinion is not one of ignorance of lack of education on the subject. I'm wrong simply for not sharing your faith? Full of yourself much?

I offer you the same challenge I have offered others who disagree with me: Calm down, gather your thoughts and make your point without calling names. I am more than happy to have a differing point of view represented here. What I won't stand for is drive-by insults. If I have made a point in error and you can show me where I am in error, I will gladly retract my statements.

If you're just now hearing that someone may have posted pictures of garments on the internet let me bring you up to speed...

You may also be shocked to learn:

Joseph Smith married little girls

The Book of Abraham papyrus have been in LDS Church possession since 1967 and, guess what... they aren't what they claim to be.

The secret temple signs and tokens? Masonic handshakes.

My temple name was Reuben. Same with every other male who received their endowment in the Salt Lake Temple the same day I did.

Disgusted;

just like you I waas searching "temple" garments and come upon this site.

I think you're being judgmental in condemning Pete and Korihor so thoroughly. It is NOT your duty to question what goes on in strangers lives and pass judgment if you believe they are lacking. I would venture to say you are wrong in speaking out for me or any other woman in a relationship. You don't know another's situation. For all you know, Korihor's wife could have been standing behind him while he was typing. Where would that put you? I'll tell you. It'd put you on the wrong side. in the New Testament of the bible (I'm using the NIV)Matthew 7 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I appreciate your point but please, let's not make this a Bible bash.

I think that comment requires no response. It speaks volumes on its own.

"""Korihor, I'm sorry to say that EVERYTHING a husband does in secret under the guise of anonymity will ALWAYS get found out, and sadly the woman you love so much, as well as your "several kids", will be badly hurt and suffer because of your remarks on an anti-Mormon blog...is it really worth it?"""

Umm... Yes!

However, I reject the premise of your argument. My kids don't care, and I'm more honest with them about my apostasy than I am with you.

My wife? She would laugh at my description of navigating the Holy Armor, because we've had the same conversation in person, IN BED. Generally after she's held to my Iron Rod, breathless and sweaty, until she's bucked and spurted her way through another screaming orgasm.

I feel bad for your wife, though, if you have one. Sneaking around on anti-mormon blogs in the vain hope that you'll resurrect your flagging testimony by putting down those who have conscientiously set theirs aside. I'm doubting that an Internet Troll like you has that kind of social life, though.

I'm running and anti-Mormon cult? Ok, send me all your money and take off your top.

Mormon lingo can be so invasive that apparently I'm not even aware I'm using it. It's a great idea to publish a lexicon. I'll do a post very soon about Mormonese for people who have never been in a cult.

There are lots of pics of garments on the web. This site isn't really about that. Look around, you'll find what you're looking for. Wikipedia is a good place to start.

Okay, I just being a little sarcastic. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.
Yeah after I posted that comment, I realized that I had google at my fingertips. Oops.

I'm not into censoring reader comments so I'm going to let this go ahead and stay.

That said, Of course my opinions are biased. They are biased by my 30 years of experience as a Mormon.

As always, If you have a specific fact you can dispute, I'm more than willing to change any misinformation I may have published. Until then, I'm confident that my position is based on reality and facts.

And I promise I just threw up in my mouth a little.

And with that, I'm closing comments on this thread. I'll never get a better one that that.