I remember many years ago in a class, maybe even a BYU religion class, we were talking about the story of Cain & Abel. We read this passage:
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-4-9/
The teacher asked, “Are we our brother’s keeper?” At least half the class’s hands shot up in agreement that we are our brother’s keeper, but the teacher stopped everyone and pointed out that there is nothing in the text that says so. Cain’s use of the term is sarcastic, to point out that it is obviously not his duty to “keep” his brother, so he shouldn’t be asked to account for his whereabouts. He is obviously saying this as a diversionary tactic since he has murdered his brother. In reply to Cain’s question, God doesn’t even justify the phrase “brother’s keeper” with a response. The Hebrew word for “keeper” in the text is shamar, and its meaning is similar to how we refer to someone as a zookeeper. Keeping is hedging in someone, imprisoning them, guarding and protecting them, but in our control.
Yet, most Church members in my experience would disagree with this teacher and would claim that we should be our “brother’s keeper.” The term is even claimed in the hymn “Lord, I Would Follow Thee.”
I would be my brother’s keeper; I would learn the healer’s art.
To the wounded and the weary I would show a gentle heart.
I would be my brother’s keeper—Lord, I would follow thee.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/music/library/hymns/lord-i-would-follow-thee?lang=eng
This particular use of the term “keeper” is limited to healing and caring, not to controlling someone who is inferior or penning them in, the sense that Cain used in his churlish reply. The other verses of the hymn also specifically disclaim judging others and focus on love and service.
Still, I think this is one of the core distinctions in how religious people choose to interpret their discipleship.
In a recent online discussion, a woman in Texas who was in her ward’s YW Presidency lamented that many of the women in the ward only wore their garments on Sundays or at the temple, instead wearing athlesuirewear most of the time, and that the Young Women wore short shorts in contradiction to the guidelines in the For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet. She said that when she raised concerns and offered to do a lesson on “modesty,” others told her to mind her own business and said they weren’t interested because these lessons never go well. She also shared the concern that these types of lessons go awry, and she was clear that she doesn’t feel it’s right to blame women for men’s impure thoughts, but she still wants to encourage others to follow the standards. She took her complaint to the internet, as one does, to bolster support. Is she right?
Completely unrelated, a friend of mine posted on social media something she was told many years ago in her career, that “advice is criticism.” It’s true enough. Nobody gives you advice because they think you should not change anything about what you are doing. They also don’t give you advice because they think you know more about it than they do. They may be well-meaning, they may be trying to help, but it is criticism. While that’s not to say that criticism is always bad, unsolicited advice generally doesn’t do much good to relationships. When a doctor tells an overweight patient, “You’re overweight,” this is not a news flash to them. When a stranger tells you “Smile!” there’s a lot of information being conveyed in that one word, usually none of it welcome.
I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.
Joseph Smith, overheard by John Taylor replying to a query about his ability to lead such a large group of people.
In response to the Texas woman’s complaint, there were many conflicting opinions. The most common disagreement with her was to point out that she was being judgmental. But there was an equal pushback to this “you do you” mindset that apparently prevails in this discussion board, at least according to participants. She asked if you would do nothing if everyone in the ward was “getting drunk,” which is an interesting comparison. Are both these activities equally harmful? Are they harmful to others or just to the self?
Some pointed out that people know the standards, and lessons reiterating the same exact things don’t change minds. They might not agree with the standards. They might agree but have exceptions for health related issues. They might literally be on the way to the gym every time you happen to see them. Someone else pointed out that the statement on garments read in the temple recommend interview was relaxed in 2019, and that she was trying to enforce an outdated standard, that the current standard was personal choice.[1]
While it’s easy to think that this woman is a judgmental Gladys Kravitz, which she may be, she didn’t come across completely that way to me. It’s true that it’s irritating when ward members form a sort of neighborhood watch committee to police the behaviors of their fellow Mormons, but having shared standards, at least in a high demand religion like ours has always been, is part of building a community. Without those shared standards, it can feel like chaos to some, freedom to others.
The other perspective is that when we preach anything other than becoming like Christ, following His example, (even “coming to Christ” in which we probably mean “the Church” instead of “Christ”), we are probably looking beyond the mark. When we are using the words of church leaders to bolster our own “rightness” rather than having an open-hearted discussion about what Jesus would do in our situation, we are using a substitution for Christ, one that may contradict His actual teachings.
The woman pointed out that garments were of value to her to remind her of Jesus and her covenants, which is great…for her. The women she sees who are not doing what she’s doing may not need clothing as a reminder of Christ. Or they may feel differently about it as a reminder. Within other churches, wearing a cross is a symbolic reminder of Christ, but failing to wear one doesn’t necessarily mean you need correction by others within the community.
We should strive to be open-minded to input from others, but that doesn’t mean that they are always right, and we can learn from everyone either. Plus, life is just too short to have to listen to every person out there who thinks we aren’t living the way they think we should. On a continuum, other people can inspire us, they can persuade us, they can advise us, they can remind us, they can nag us, they can warn us, they can scold us, they can use force to control us. But wherever they are on this continuum, they see themselves in a superior position to us: they are right, and we need to be right in the same way they are right. They are our keeper.
And yet, this is likely a byproduct of being in a lay clergy church. We don’t consider women to have priesthood [2], but women and men are “in charge” of others through our callings. We have (limited) stewardship to teach others, to advise them, and to correct them. And we also have a church that elevates the opinions of church leaders, increasingly the higher up they are, over those of church members. Given that people are flawed, the more we push this idea, the worse the outcomes will be. We preach out of both sides of our mouth, that everyone is entitled to personal revelation, that we follow the dictates of our conscience, that we have agency, but that we are always wrong if we disagree with or don’t obey leaders, that we can use the words of leaders as a cudgel against our fellow members and to prove that we are more right than they are, and that the outward appearance is a totally valid way to determine someone’s righteousness.
We are looking beyond the mark when we elevate any one principle, no matter how worthwhile it may be, to a prominence that lessens our commitment to other equally important principles or when we take a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren.
E. Cook, nailing it, then failing disastrously on the dismount, literally contradicting his original excellent point
So what’s your take on this “brother’s keeper” business?
- Are we supposed to be our “brother’s keeper”? Why or why not?
- Does it matter if church members conform to standards? Which ones?
- Is it right to police others’ behavior in the church community? Does it work?
- Have you received unsolicited advice that you were glad you got?
Discuss.
[1] I think the point of clarification was not so much a change to the standard as making the statement a more accurate representation of the instruction given in the temple, but that’s just my interpretation.
[2] Except whatever that borrowed priesthood thing was that Oaks is trying to make happen.
Wheat & Tares 
I was pretty libertarian to begin with as a TBM and now that I’m out I am almost entirely so. I don’t have any desire to tell others how to live as long as they leave me alone.
I was happy to do the white savior thing in Argentina for 18 months back in the day but when I returned from my mission I did not follow the “every member a missionary” model. I figured that if an acquaintance was interested in the Church they’d ask me about it. And as an EQ president and HP group leader I was very resistant to calls in PEC and Ward Council to “rescue” less active members. If someone needed something, great let’s help. But I mainly tried to respect people’s wishes to be left alone.
I guess if you believe in something strongly you sometimes feel the need to spread the word to others. But do TBMs ever consider how annoying it would be to have members of other religions doing that to us? Have you ever had a well-meaning Jehova’s Witness knock on your door? No thanks. Church membership is 2 of every 1000 people on this planet. It’s never going to get close to 1%. Just leave people alone.
Most of us (myself included) should focus on taking care of themselves and improving themselves and NOT on keeping track of their brother (and sister).
“Obedience is to Commandment as Responsibility is to Covenant”
The institution’s mainstream teachings tend to conflate commandment with covenant—and this error reduces the power of metaphor in the endowment.
Wearing the garment may certainly be a reminder of many things, but above all, it bears the yoke of burden upon others—taking responsibility for one another is greater than obedience to all the commandments (repentance covers disobedience). Ancient kingship, which includes the Queen, is marked by dominion through the ordinance of royal adoption (sealing). Having the king’s seal amounts to having a right to the bounty of the kingdom—whether a territory, or mortal life upon the lap of Mother Earth.
Evidence of this principle is expressed in Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees, whose rigid obedience to commandment was undeniable, and who—in their self-righteousness—neglected the poor, the downtrodden, the diseased, the neglected, “widows” and “orphans” of society and kingdom. Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy (Luke 4): the institution was rich and the congregation was poor.
Responsibility (covenant) is therefore a type of dominion, a taking-care of one another. Both righteous dominion and unrighteous dominion, are nevertheless expressions of some degree of power/authority to act on behalf of others.
We are able to remediate dominion as we build the treasury of our home wards in Fast Offerings. Many wise saints choose to offer to the Ward Fast Offering in greater proportions than recommended—some offer wholly to the Fast Offering, the Covenant of Responsibility, rather than sending ten percent to corporate headquarters to subsidize Salt Lake and Utah economy. To take care of those around us is greater than to take care of the institution (which mostly takes care of itself).
Fraternal [Masonic] vestiges still pollute the conceptual metaphor of priesthood, so until we figuratively burn the Masonic dross from temple liturgy, we are bound by Brigham Young’s interpretation and not Joseph Smith’s interpretation of gender equality.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. I’ve long held serious concerns about that “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves,” quote, which as I understand was given to a journalist and overheard and repeated by John Taylor. I mean, Joseph Smith didn’t actually do that at all in his governance. He was very hands on. And yet the Church uses it without the slightest irony and the right wing of the Church (so, basically the large majority of US Mormons) use it to justify their political beliefs. It was a throw-away line and in no way accurately depicts JS or the Church and how it deals with surveillance of members.
That said, humans are social beings and it’s vastly important for humans to ‘keep track’ of others in their groups. Note, that doesn’t mean it is necessary to ‘correct’ them. Also, I want to live in a world where we come together and work on things together, for the betterment of everyone. Some things simply can’t be taken of by everyone leaving everyone else alone. If you ask me, just leaving everything to some invisible hand is exactly how we get into most of the messes we are in. The powerful and privileged stay powerful and that’s about it. They are heavily incentives to keep it that way.
Listen and talk and share and love. And yes, let people make their own choices and leave them alone. But also don’t ignore them. People are a people a problem. And those who don’t care enough to engage can’t complain. In the end, it’s complicated on how to work it all out, but I see that ‘working it out’ as part of the important work.
I don’t wear garments and haven’t for several years.
About a decade ago I was in a RS lesson about the ten commandments. Major review, why bother, right? Well, there was an investigator. She didn’t know the definition of adultery. It was explained, and she exclaimed “well, I guess I’m committing adultery!”. Sometimes we assume people have been taught but they haven’t.
Less dramatically, I’ve taught youth Sunday school where a child of a stake presidency member stopped a temple lesson to ask was a “session” was. Her parents were always going to the temple for a session, she didn’t know what that meant, and I wasn’t using that word when trying to teach about endowment. Bright kid, but needed to be taught.
For the case at hand, she’s a YW leader. I do think the youth need to be taught suggested standards and then make their decisions. Their bodies are growing and changing. Maybe they have not been taught about modesty in the context of situational appropriateness, proper fit, and health and safety. Eventually they need to be told that sparkly princess dresses aren’t appropriate interview attire, your favorite t-shirt from 3rd grade doesn’t fit, don’t wear dangly jewelry around machinery, and don’t wear sweatpants to your cousin’s wedding.
All that said, it’s none of my business what my adult sister decides to wear, and none of her business what I wear.
Years of severe extended-family challenges (mental illness, homelessness, suicide) have left me in this place of tension when it comes to (literally) being my siblings’ keeper.
I can’t solve other people’s problems. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t help. It can make things worse for then. Trying just ruins the relationship.
Vs.
I can’t watch someone I love suffering and not do everything I can to help them.
Big scale, small scale, it always comes down to this push and pull within me.
Situations like other people’s garment choices (or WoW or whatever) are the easy ones to allow others (and God) to handle.
I had never thought of “keeper” this way. Big Brother is a bad look.
I’m sympathetic (no, really) to the YW leader in Texas. She seems to be trying to do the right thing as she understands it. And clearly she’s contemplating something that isn’t likely to increase her popularity.
But I’ve concluded the right thing is almost never telling anybody what I think they’re doing wrong. Possible exceptional scenarios:
1 Have they asked? ; if yes, Am I qualified to give an opinion?
2 Are they a former resident of my uterus?
3 If I don’t say something, will serious harm to someone else result?
Scenario 3 is vanishingly rare in my experience. In scenarios 1 and 2 I like to err on the side of less is more and silence being eloquent.
I teach high school math. My students are much better behaved when I flat out tell them what I expect of them. At some point we have to actually teach the principles, don’t we?
No-one would want to hear the explanation as to why I don’t wear my garments due to health issues. I’m assuming others have similar issues.
Previously, the way that I interpreted the messages I was taught at church led me to believe that “I should be my brothers keeper,” and that I should “help” others come unto Christ by helping them to be more obedient. My actions came from a good place and good intentions, but now I’m embarrassed by some of my previous actions and sorry for them.
My previous definition of Love was: “wanting what’s best for others, and doing my part to make that happen.” We’re also told to help others come unto Christ. I loved others and wanted them to come unto Christ, so I did my best to #1-be a good example, and #2 Encourage others follow Christ. I never meant to be judgemental or thought of myself as being judgmental, but as was stated in the post, any advice (or encouragement) is criticism. I think I was a typical member of the church, and lots of members of the church operate under this paradigm. It comes from a good place, however, it’s wrong.
My new definition of love is: To “Accept people as they are, and just love them, expecting nothing in return.” When we’re “trying to help others come unto Christ” by encouraging them to do better, we’re not accepting others as they are and we’re expecting something in return- so it doesn’t meet the definition of love for me. Plus it’s counterproductive- encouraging others to do better just causes them to justify their actions, but accepting them as they are allows them to drop the defensiveness and change for the better.
President Uchdorf’s talk about not judging others was great. I really loved the quote “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.” And his advice about judging to “Stop it.” I think it would be helpful if he (or someone) gave a talk and clearly stated, “Don’t “help” others come unto Christ by pointing out what they can do better. That’s judging. STOP IT. Really. Just accept people as they are.”
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
This is exactly how I feel about “Mormons” – or anybody else for that matter – making judgements and inserting themselves into other’s lives. Stay the Hell in your own lane; regardless of how righteous you may perceive yourself to be.
The responsibility one person has for another depends a lot on the relationship. A parent and child relationship in regards to teaching and guiding is very different than two adults. However, looking out for other people from a place of love seems like something Jesus would do. It seems compassionate to warn people if they are in imminent danger or to inform them of something if they are truly ignorant. The difficult question is what is spiritual danger, so to speak? Or what is emotional or psychological danger or any of these things that affect a person’s happiness that are invisible?
I think the church does a terrible job of separating behaviors and attitudes that cause true pain and harm from those that threaten the institution’s control over people. For example, if my friend is dating someone who is emotionally abusive, I think it’s my responsibility to warn her. Even if be is supposedly a righteousness priesthood holder. But if my friend is not wearing garments, but understands the church’s position on them, it’s not my responsibility to interfere. There are so many outward religious checklist items that the church has created that supposedly determine a person’s salvation/exaltation. Because there is the added layer of only finding true happiness in the celestial kingdom, these checklist items become grave agonizing concerns when people see their family or friends failing to complete them. With exaltation being an exclusive family affair, I’m no longer just responsible for my own salvation but am my brother/sister’s keeper too. If I don’t invest in watching over wayward family or friends, then I end up in a sad heaven with empty chairs. And let’s also not forget that now, this short mortal life, is the time to prepare to meet God because it’s too late after you die.
The reality is all human beings are muddling around doing the best they can, and if God is not merciful enough to acknowledge that after death, then how can such a God be omniscient? While we should prevent unnecessary pain and suffering as much as we can through teaching behaviors that have positive consequences, the church often encourages the other fear-based extreme of exact obedience to a checklist. We should celebrate the positive trajectory a person is headed in and support them, not constantly chastise them because they are not farther along on their path. But the church loves quantifiable measurements because it’s a business. Hence the introduction of the “covenant path” and all the checklists that come with it.
I like Mary’s point that the amount of our responsibility depends on our relationship. For a brother, like Cain and Abel, maybe you do have a responsibility to keep track of him, or at least not act like it’s unrealistic to be asked where he is. God already knew Abel was dead; his question to Cain was an opportunity for him to confess and instead he tried to confuse the issue and dodge God’s question. Who is God going to ask about? The people in our stewardship, the people who are willing to listen to us. In other words, people with whom we have a close and trusting relationship. God already knows what we’ve done and haven’t done. The question is a chance to talk about a relationship with God.
What is it about being our brother’s keeper that means we have to teach them and keep them in line? God was just asking for Abel’s whereabouts. In the hymn you quoted, being your brother’s keeper is tied to learning the ‘healer’s art’ and showing a gentle heart to the wounded and weary. That sounds more like being a Good Samaritan and helping those who are hurt than it does like explaining modesty to adults who probably already know they aren’t wearing their garments.
@Lily I think that’s a really strong point, and it leads us to revisit why thinking critically about what those principles are is so important. As a Church, a community, and as individuals, we only have so much time, mental energy, and social capital. We have to be really clear about which principles we want to focus on.
Personally, I tend to think that the “little things” don’t matter so much. In Christ’s interactions with the Pharisees, we see again and again how He condemns them for focusing on the lower laws instead of the higher laws. For example, Matthew 23 is, in my opinion, one of the most unique books of the New Testament. In it, the same Christ who says to the woman taken in adultery “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” absolutely takes the Pharisees to task in an incredibly harsh way. He pronounces woes upon them, He tells them they are blind fools, He even calls them a generation of vipers.
I think that Matthew 23:34 tells part of the reason why. Christ says, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” Both gnats and camels were prohibited as food under the Law of Moses. At this time, some Pharisees would strain the liquids they drank to avoid swallowing any gnats by accident. Christ used the exaggeration of swallowing a camel to demonstrate the hypocrisy that the Pharisees displayed in focusing on the lower laws instead of the higher laws. Christ rebukes this hypocrisy in the Pharisees so often and so strongly in the New Testament that, in my opinion, it points to this concept as one of the most important of Christ’s earthly teaching.
What are the gnats and camels of our present time? We have to decide that on a personal level, a community level, and a Church level.
The Christian message is simple: Love God, love your neighbor. I simplify to: Love God by loving your neighbor. Who your neighbor is and how you love your neighbor is a personal decision. The Church should be there to help us with our mission. Pres Monson understood this. But the Church’s response has been underwhelming, despite Pres Oaks’ talk in the recent GC.
As for being a “keeper,” we all have deep responsibilities within our formal and informal family setting. For our children, for our aging parents, for friends in trouble, etc. But we can’t be a keeper to everyone we love.
The structure of the Church is problematic. The temple recommend questions create the same kind of paradigm as we find with the Jews in the Old Testament. They created rules for providing a hedge around the Law of Moses which, in the end, produced the Pharisees and Sadducee’s, experts in scrupulosity and judgementalism. When Christ came he condemned those behaviors. The LDS church needs to learn from the failures of the Biblical Jews. There is a serious problem of scrupulosity among its members today. If entry questions to the temple were based on principles rather than specifics that might help, but even so, the concept of being “temple worthy” sets us up to be both judges and “keepers” (in the sense of control).
Honestly I had never heard of “brother’s keeper” interpreted as sarcasm or with the meaning of enforcing religious rules such as garment-waring. I had always interpreted it as performing Christ-like acts of charity to the less fortunate.
To answer the questions:
1. No, we shouldn’t be policing other people’s religious behaviors. Religion is voluntary. Obeying its moral codes is voluntary. On the other hand, we should be policing violations of the law. If you see someone beating their child, report them. If you’re a bishop and someone confesses to raping a minor, report that person to the authorities to have him face charges. Ironic that church leaders still can’t bring themselves to fully denounce the Arizona incident, say they were wrong, and very loudly tell leaders to report all alleged child abuse to law enforcement.
2. It does matter that church members appear to conform to the standards. If my ward members are always going out and getting publicly drunk all while telling people to obey the Word of Wisdom every Sunday, it is blatant hypocrisy. And why would I want to be surrounded by hypocrites. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. But come on. If you want to go out and drink, then why bother being part of the Mormon church?
3. I do not think it is right to police others’ behaviors in the community. But it can be effective. To some degree. I look at what has been going on in Iran and the morality police and the basij (paramilitary civilians who enforce the Islamic Republic’s rules), and they have most certainly been effective. The drawback. Well, apparently a large segment of the female population deeply resents forced wearing the hijab. Let those hijabs burn, I say. Long a symbol of misogynistic oppression. Power to the protestors there. Although, I’m unfortunately not optimistic that their movement will succeed.
4. I have appreciated unsolicited advice but only during times when I’ve been struggling with something and both the advice-giver and I have recognized that I’ve been struggling.
good dialog here; thx to all who are contributing. As to the actual question of garment-wearing, we had a good experience when we first moved into another area of the Utah Mormondom: one afternoon the Stake President was invited to a Ward-sponsored Sunday evening fireside (that was a fairly common event which the bishopric provided for its adult members, and provided a pleasant socializing opportunity). He was asked to share his thoughts on daily wearing of the temple garment. He emphasized that he was only providing HIS OPINION, not Church doctrine, but he believed that the wearing should be commensurate with the outer clothing being worn. For example, if you are playing basketball, the uniform obviously doesn’t accommodate a temple garment. If you are swimming, the suit obviously doesn’t accommodate a garment. By extension, if you are wearing something that doesn’t accommodate a garment, then don’t use the garment. Then, it is strictly up to you to decide if you wish to wear something that doesn’t accommodate a garment.
If I wear my temple garments, it’s b/c I consider it a privilege, not simply an obligation. FWIW, I don’t keep track of the attire of other members, as long as they wear SOMETHING. Happily, haven’t seen any fellow LDS members “streaking”.
I note with interest the story of some TEXAS sister observing that so many of her ward’s RS sisters not wearing the garment outside of church attendance or going to the Temple. Texas. In case folks haven’t noticed or been there, most of the Lone Star State, certainly just about anywhere east of the Edwards Plateau, is rather HUMID, and almost all of it is quite hot. Indeed, there’s no way there’d be as many folks living in “Tejas” were it not for refrigeration. My agency’s HQ is in San Antonio, I go there for business frequently, and most of the time I can get decent accommodations adjacent to the Riverwalk. Few, VERY few times, are conditions conducive for an evening stroll along the Riverwalk to wear “G’s” and sufficient attire to conceal them. If what the San Antonio tourist trap has to offer when I’m, in the spiritual sense, “going commando”, would lead me astray, well, it’d be rather pathetic, wouldn’t it?
I can’t see how being “my brother’s keeper” (as pointed out, limited to feeling obligation to lend assistance to the needs of others, not carte blanche to restrain nor imprison them) gives me license to “rat out” any questionable behavior. I’ve had that happen to me, when a former bishop, about some 13 or so years ago, in a recommend interview, tells me that other members have seen me not wearing garments. Sheesh. I did (and still do) hit the gym almost every day, and it’s not as if I’m so superstitious as to think that “Gawd” will be sore at me if I have suitable gym attire to and from mi casa, instead of changing in the locker room and/or using their showering facilities. I was then rather taken back that (1) other members felt it their business to “fink” on their fellow members and (2) that the bishop seemed to encourage such behavior.