Talk:Temple garment: Difference between revisions

floating underwear picture

The picture looks strange, almost cartoon-ish, alien like and a very bad photoshop as well. A pair of ultra bright white underwear floating in deep space. Whoever 'shopped it, you should have put planets and nebulae in the background if you were going for a comedic effect. I know it made me laugh. :) I've gotta say, this is almost as bad as the picture on the semen article. 70.190.199.33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

I agree with you 100%, but at the time of that picture being included I was 'outvoted'. The original is still available as a 'replacement' if needed. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And as the photoshopper in question, I'm happy to admit it's not professional quality -- but I assert it's a lot better than the original, which was widely agreed at the time to be garish and unduly provocative. Duke53 and I will surely never see eye to eye on this, so I will not argue this with him (and I concede the last word to him if he wishes it). Anonymous, if you'd like to come up with a better alternative, by all means do so; I feel no particular pride of ownership for the image that would prevent me from supporting something that would be more aesthetically pleasing while remaining properly encyclopedic. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain that I could do better than the image in question, since the clearest depiction would be either a mannequin or a human model wearing the garment. If I did so, it may suffer the same fate as the original photo. The original was fine, the background was somewhat busy and distracting and I believe if it was going to be edited, the photo should have been edited in a way to remove the background, not the human model to where the garment looks as if its floating there. The original image should have stayed as per WP:NOTCENSORED, quoted from this policy:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

It looks like censorship to me, amazing really that an article having to do with religion, editors can completely ignore policies and censor images that aren't remotely offensive to the majority of people. It also seems to me from an outsider perspective, that the user who uploaded this photo has had a campaign run against him by editors or anonymous users who have some involvement with the LDS or articles pertaining to them. Yet articles with non-encyclopedic photos that are put up by exhibitionists or trolls, where the general consensus has been to remove the photos, continue to stay up (article above is a good example of such.) If this article's image has to be censored for the sake that a small percentage of people find it provocative, I am surprised the criticism of LDS page is allowed to stay up as well.70.190.199.33 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The censorship argument carries no weight here. The informational content of the two images is the same: they both depict the temple garment, which is the subject of this article. The photoshopped image removed elements that were unnecessary for the portrayal of the garment, including elements that were gratuitously provocative to a segment of the readers (as acknowledged by non-LDS editors: [1], [2], [3]). The editors involved in the debate over the original image at the time were all in favor of the second image, with the sole exception of Duke53. (See Archive 6 of this talk page; the previous archive pages are also very useful for background.)
Since that time, although there have been numerous drive-by removals by those who feel the garment should not be depicted at all on-wiki, the editors who do accept WP:NOTCENSORED have not touched or challenged the photo. Now, of course, consensus can change. If Anonymous thinks that the opinion of the community is likely to have shifted since 2006, they can upload a new version (or bring forward the original) and invite the community to choose between it and the currently used one. I will be vehemently unconcerned about this. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

•"(as acknowledged by non-LDS editors: [4], [5], [6])" Nothing in those 3 diffs you provide identifies any editor as non-lds. Creating an argument out of whole cloth, are you ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No—the diffs do not themselves reveal the editors to be non-LDS; they reveal what the editors felt about the content that was removed from the image. The context of the preceding months of discussion as found in the archives, however, does make it clear that they are not LDS; and if you doubt it after reviewing the discussion, you can certainly confirm it by asking them directly. What's the opposite of whole cloth, I wonder? Half cloth? Hole cloth? :) alanyst ^/talk/ 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"the diffs do not themselves reveal the editors to be non-LDS" ... "you can certainly confirm it by asking them directly" Or, conversely, you could ask them, since it is you declaring them to be 'non-lds editors'. It's not my responsibility to verify your claim. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Awfully good of you to 'hide' that section with no provision to add to or edit it. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can add further remarks in the hidden section; just edit this talk page and find the location where you want your remarks to go. The intent is to allow users who might not be interested in argumentum ad hominem to follow the main line of discussion, and to discourage the off-topic stuff without forcibly ending it. For your convenience, I have moved your note about the sockpuppet investigation into that section. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You may consider these false, baseless accusations as argumentum ad hominem but be assured that I find them a form of childish, petulant attacks meant to annoy and embarrass; the continuation of such behavior will always met head on by me. Odd that some editors don't see their own incivility, but accuse others of it. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alanyst, do NOT edit my talk page remarks again[7]. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon. I fixed a broken wikilink and removed what appeared to be a stray bullet character. I didn't realize that you wanted them that way. It's the compulsive proofreader in me coming through. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about 'compulsive proofreaders', so I suggest you read [8] so that you're familiar with what WP says all editors should do. Cheers. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 03:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to view the original anywhere on the web?—Kww(talk) 20:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, [9] as sent to me. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not as bad as I had feared from the discussion. I think I prefer the floating in space look, but I would have a hard time thinking of the original as particularly provocative or lurid.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry

Not surprisingly, Bytebear has made a false accusation against me and then avoided this page and the sockpuppet report page since then. This same type behavior has also been seen before from other editors; any credibility Bytebear may have had must surely be questioned now by all other editors. I have been wondering if this behavior isn't merely just a bit of 'lying for the lord'. http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there something in your post that is supposed to be about this topic or is about improving the article? I see nothing helpful in it. Please focus solely on the article and the topic and not other editors. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yay ... right on cue the calvary shows up to save the day! Oddly enough, you had nothing to say when the pro-lds editor (Bytebear) posted his lies (which weren't on-topic), but then again you also have lied in the past about me using sockpuppets and I'm still waiting for that apology. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are so of a one trick pony aren't you? Seems like it would get boring for most, but for you, you are going to ride it into the ground.

So are you saying that was on topic or not? It is unclear. I would not be too worried about being accused of a sock puppet. You are not the only rabid anti-Mormon in the world. I can see why some confuse you.

If you are waiting on an apology, please just hold your breath. Cheers. --^StormRider 01:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

•"If you are waiting on an apology, please just hold my breath" (huh?) That's says about as much about your character as most people need to know. Thanks for playing. Cheers. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, Bytebear's speculation on sockpuppetry was equally unhelpful and off-topic. The identity, religious affiliation, or favorite brand of mustard of editors here is pretty much irrelevant to the question of how one version of the garment illustration compares to another. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but wasn't that conversation deleted or at least hidden? I should have just deleted his edit with the reason and moved on. Ignore editors and focus on the topic. The current picture works. --^StormRider 22:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This section is important to the talk page as it illustrates how some editors will lie to affect changes in the article. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I never lied. I raised my suspicions (not the same as an accusation, by the way) and did not violate any Wikipedia policies in doing so. Your response specifically violated WP:CIVIL. I have been civil. I have avoided responding. You are continuing to choose to attempt to escalate a situation that I consider long settled. And I suspect you will continue to do so. I will not comment further. Let the other editors deal with you. Bytebear (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't your assertation that nothing 'conclusive' was determined by a 'moderator' about me using

sockpuppets a lie ? Hint: YES! Also, that a 'moderator' 'understood' your reasoning wasn't true, either :). "What a wicked web we weave .... " Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Byte, this is a useless conversation. The only lesson to learn is that editors should use care when alleging another editor is a sock puppet; please use that accusation sparingly in the future.

However, what you know for a certainty is that this particular editor is a troll. His objective is devoid of any benefit to Wikipedia; his only interest is to argue on talk pages. My advice to you is to stop all commutation with him. He has repeatedly proved himself incapable of working cooperatively. Move on and ignore what he says. In doing so, I promise you will have a better day.

Lastly, discussion pages are only for the purpose of improving the article. All other discussions such as this little diatribe of silliness is not acceptable and can and often is deleted. Cheers. --^StormRider 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am the same IP from above. I have redacted my comment that was deemed off topic. As my last note left here was reverted carelessly with it, I don't appreciate your allegations that I am a troll since my contribs on different IPs say otherwise. The comment I redacted was deemed off topic enough to be moved into its own section, was not replied to, and the others were struck out well within policy, so please leave it this way. 68.3.165.84 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

terminology

many people know the term only by magic underwear. The point of including the reference is so that those outside of LDS can make the connection bewtween LDS members saying "garments" and secular persons saying "magic/Mormon underwear" or whatever other term might be used. Magic underwear as a phrase is not sactioned by the Mormon Church, but nonetheless is a legitimate usage of English to describe something. By the logic of those who wish to take out the reference because they they do not like it, we should also emove references in Wikipedia to 'Niggers,' 'Papists,' 'gimps,' 'spastics,' 'urban format radio,' 'queers,' 'Mongoloids,' 'Mexican Jumping Beans,' 'broads,' 'dames,' 'retards,' and all pictorial depiction of Mohammed. Further, we must then remove 'The Netherlands' in favor of 'Nederland', replace 'Japan' with 'Nipon', and list Fort Collins' intentionally mispelled newspaper as 'The Coloradoan [sic]' instead of merely using the proper term 'The Coloradan.'

The fact that a limited demographic may not care for the term, does not mean the term is invalid.

I am not recommending or condoning the term 'magic underwear', merely providing those who may not know the full context with a place to learn the full background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.58 (talk • contribs)

Absolutely not. There are probably people that only know many people or things by derogatory slang, but that doesn't justify placement in the list. Your examples are quite good: homosexual doesn't include the term "queer" in the lead, Catholic doesn't include the word "papist" as a synonym, African-American doesn't say "a.k.a. nigger". It just isn't normal to include derogatory slang synonyms as a part of the definition of an item.—Kww(talk) 05:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have moved to reference. like I said, the point is not to condone but to inform. the new placement makes the info available without legitimizing it. also, before you speak in absolutes (i.e. Absolutely not), understand that doing so reveals a lack of higher education and an inability to engage in academic discourse. not trying to insult, please understand, just trying to help you so that in the future when you attemt to make valid arguments you do so in a legitimate manner. There is nothing "absolutely" flawed in my possition, and furthermore you state "Absolutely not" but never show which part of my arguement your possition of absoluteness intends to refute.

furthuremore, Wikipedia DOES refer to 'niggers' and 'papist' . . . they have entries all their own! I do not believe 'magic underwear' should have a legitimating entry all its own, just that it should be discussed SOMEWHERE in the article so that the uninitiated may make the connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.58 (talk • contribs)

Policy-wise, one problem with the information you've added is that it is cited to a website (mormonstudies.com) that appears to be a self-published site which does not meet the standards for reliable sourcing. I've done a quick Google search on "magic underwear" to see if there are any better sources but the results all seem to be self-published sites, most of which use the term to denigrate Mormons, not to discuss use of the term itself.

Slang, due to its distracting effect in an article, should IMO be used only if it's established to be notable, and even then used extremely judiciously and for better reasons than "someone might want to know what that term means". (Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide.) To draw a parallel, students at many universities will come up with very creative ways to denigrate their rival school or members of its community. Even if such terms gain widespread use, there's nothing that sets one term apart from the rest as particularly noteworthy unless reliable sources start commenting on it (for example, because it's controversial enough to be reported on or has been studied for its cultural significance). alanyst ^/talk/ 06:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the event that that is the only term a person knows, entering it will bring them to this article anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magic_underwear&diff=191170325&oldid=191170127 —Kww(talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As will Holy underwear, a term which I gather is actually used by Mormons, although it has an unintended and humorous alternate meaning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This "FAQ",[10] written by a Mormon with a sense of humor, uses the expression "Holy Underwear" in a question about a quarter of the way down the page, while using the term Temple Garment in the answer. No "magic garment" to be seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if you google [mormon "holy underwear"] you will find a lot of entries, but offhand I don't see any that suggest that "holy underwear" is anything more than a colloquialism among Mormons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been a LDS for decades; I have never heard any LDS use the term "Holy Underwear". LDS use the term "garments" when referring to Temple Garment. There are many, many derogatory names used from Rocky Mountain Jump Suits to Magic Underwear to Holy Underwear; none of these terms are acceptable. When someone is trying to be funny, you will use the term, but none of these terms would be used by a LDS in common conversation. -^StormRider 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The item I cited was written by a Mormon, but as noted, his answer to the question only used the terms "garment" and "Temple Garment". I have a friend who has relatives who are Mormons, and he reported the term as Holy Underwear. In fact, until he elaborated, I thought he was joking. My guess is that it's a "nickname" or colloquialism - just as "Mormon" itself is (according to Mitt Romney). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your example is anecdotal. Mormons do not typically use the term "Holy underwear." They use the term "garments." I've been Mormon for 30 years. 66.75.28.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

If there is a nickname used by LDS members (especially returned missionaries), it would be "G's". Previous editors are right. Virtually no Mormons use the term "Holy Underwear." --Manway (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the article says that Mormons call these garments "holy underwear", it says that it's *a* name for them, meaning it could be used by non-mormons. That's confirmed here. tedder (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

correct and accurate.

thank you for posting this .I appreciate this article .I learned alot about the subject and think it was fairly and accurately described in a non judgmental matter .Thank you . Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.64.143 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2011 (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)

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#Time to review Temple Garment image has some useful discussion on related points. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comfort?

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)