A Tale of Garments and Sensory Processing Disorder

[Anonymous]

And some would argue the garment was not made correctly for them.

[Anonymous]

^^Yep.

[Anonymous]

Thanks so much for all the support and kind words about this.

I love how everyone’s responses here indicate that we span the whole entire spectrum of garment-wearing (or not) that works for people, including creative work-arounds and hacks, and how nobody feels a need to condemn or criticize what the others are choosing or have chosen. This group is beautiful.

Reuben wrote:

My philosophical side notes that the more Pharisaical an organization’s rules are, and the sharper the boundaries it establishes, the more it marginalizes and pushes out those who can’t conform.

My religious side, when justifying not wearing garments at night, has in mind this scripture:

Quote:

And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

At night, because of RLS, I have not: I can’t make this sacrifice. You, squarepeg, because of SPD, also can’t make this sacrifice. I count wanting to make it to be just as good as making it.

Reuben, I’m sorry you deal with a bunch of sensory stuff, too. It sounds like you and I experience just slightly different variations of the same weirdness/disorder. I think you deserve a lot of credit for keeping on wearing them and finding ways to make the best of it, for the sake of family relationships.

I absolutely agree that the more Pharisaical an organization’s rules are, the more it will marginalize people. In an organization where the Spirit of the Law reigns supreme, there is a place for pretty much anyone.

That’s an awesome insight with the quoted scripture. We can’t do what we can’t do, but our intentions count. With some issues, like the garments issue, it’s hard because we actually can do it just as we’re told to – it’s just that if/when we do it as instructed it can impair our ability to keep other commandments, like loving our neighbor or listening for promptings of how to serve, because we’re too distracted and stressed in our perfect obedience of the garments commandment. It’s complicated. But I agree, when obedience to one commandment is a significant disruption to our ability to function normally, we truly “have not”.

The two waistbands! I would have to roll the garment waistband down 4 times to get it to be in line with my pants waistline. It would never stay rolled, of course. Your description of the grippiness problem with the cotton ones reminds me that when my husband wore them he would get tons of ingrown hairs. I didn’t realize until reading your experience that the disappearance of all the ingrown hairs corresponds to when he stopped wearing his garments. If he ever decides to wear them again I’ll have him try “corban”.

Ann wrote:

Sight is a sense, too. And the sight of them 24/7/365 was too much. I do wear them, but much less than before. My husband, thank heaven, is fine with it, and I feel TONS happier and feminine without changing a stitch of my outer wardrobe.

Ann, I’m so glad you found a good solution. Another principle or habit of which I no longer have a testimony is wearing “Sunday clothes” on Sundays (or to other church functions), but I still do it because I recognize that for others the visual experience at church is enhanced if everyone else is dressed in a certain way, and aesthetics can help some people feel the Spirit. Kind of like how I can focus more easily in a room devoid of clutter. We like to say appearance doesn’t matter…but on a certain level it can absolutely matter.

Always Thinking wrote:

[…](if I could, I would NEVER wear bras).

[…]buy something that is modest only to have my garments show anyways.

I don’t have SPD but I’m what’s called a Highly Sensitive Person so certain textures and sounds really get at me and piss me off, but not to the same extent as you where it’s torturous.

Me, too, re bras! I’ve also had a hard time, often, finding clothes that don’t show garments. After a while I gave up and just started wearing all unisex t-shirts on weekdays, and button-down collared shirts with a skirt on Sunday, because it seemed that anything else would show my garments. And I wear loose-fitting jeans because, again with the sensory issues, I can’t stand them “touching” me everywhere. And usually I don’t wear makeup because I don’t like how it feels, either. I’m sure some people who didn’t know me assumed I was lesbian because I looked very androgynous. (Now I have a few shirts that are actually meant for women.) Interesting that you are an HSP. My mom wanted me to read that book because she feels she is one, also, and she thinks I am, but she’s probably right and I don’t want to find out I have any other quirky traits, haha. I’m weird enough, already. On the flip side, it is nice, in a way, to learn there is a label (other than “freak” or “weirdo”) for how your experience differs from that of the majority, isn’t it? It makes me think of all the people out there who are isolated due to being different in some way because there isn’t a label for their experiences…yet.

Curt, thank you for the links to the other threads discussing garments. I am still reading through them. So many valuable insights.

SilentDawning wrote:

I wear the garments to church and in places where church people might start assessing my compliance (looking for the eternal smile under my white shirt) (sound strange, but they do it to see if you are in compliance). But as a rule, I don’t wear them unless there is some religious purpose. And I am much happier as a result. And happiness is the object and design of our existence, isn’t it

I don’t get how wearing clothing that irritates you constantly, throughout your whole life can be part of the “the fulfilling life”.

SilentDawning, thank you. It really bothers me that we can often tell whether another person is wearing garments. The whole idea, I thought, was for it to be a private reminder of covenants between the individual and the Lord. The whole point, I thought, to having them worn underneath clothing, was to make the matter a private one. So, now, for fear that others will think we’re not taking our covenants seriously, we have to be sneaky, wearing them when we’re around those who might judge, and not wearing them when there is no risk of judgment. That is upsetting. I wish we could get the symbols tattooed onto us instead!

Minyan Man wrote:

I agree completely. Didn’t JS when he went to the Carthage jail, not wear his garments? Yet we don’t condemn him for that.

When I became active again & went through the TR process, I made the point of saying to the Bishop, I don’t wear my garments at times like, going to the Doctor or the gym.

He said he didn’t either. The message I got is consider your situation, consider your own circumstance and make your own choice.

However, I wouldn’t get up in a Fast Meeting & say that either. (Come to think of it, I don’t get up in the Fast meeting.)

Interesting about Joseph in Carthage Jail. Maybe he had a good excuse? (I don’t get up in Fast meeting, either.) I’d feel like I could answer “Yes” to the TR interview question if I were wearing them MOST of the time. But I can’t even do that. If you take them off for the doctor and the gym, you’re still wearing them 90+% of the time; I’d bet it’s a rare bishop who would bat an eye at that.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

You’ll probably enjoy this post I did: https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/13/female-garments-the-underwear-business/

Thanks for the article, hawkgrrrl. After reading that I realize I was wrong to roll down the waistband the way I used to do (even though the top was tucked into the bottom. Interesting and significant that some of those problems were experienced by 75% of the people polled. I can sure relate to many of those problems. What a nightmare. Clearly, many others are experiencing significant problems that go beyond mere inconvenience.

Old Timer wrote:

Just like the Sabbath, the garment was made for us; we weren’t made for the garment.

Wear it in whatever way and whenever makes sense to you and brings you closer to God. If that is always, fine; if it is usually, fine; if it is occasionally, fine; if it is never, fine.

I agree fully. Having this perspective doesn’t let you into the temple if you occasionally or never wear them, though, which is the part that bums me out. I guess I just need to mentally make my temple the same as my garments: I need to realize that all kinds of different places can be “temples” to me, just like a variety of material objects can be “garments” and remind me of covenants with God.

[Anonymous]

squarepeg wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

Just like the Sabbath, the garment was made for us; we weren’t made for the garment.

Wear it in whatever way and whenever makes sense to you and brings you closer to God. If that is always, fine; if it is usually, fine; if it is occasionally, fine; if it is never, fine.

I agree fully. Having this perspective doesn’t let you into the temple if you occasionally or never wear them, though, which is the part that bums me out. I guess I just need to mentally make my temple the same as my garments: I need to realize that all kinds of different places can be “temples” to me, just like a variety of material objects can be “garments” and remind me of covenants with God.

Curt goes to the temple, as do others that hold this mindset. As has been said, the instruction in the temple is to wear it throughout your life, nothing is said about night and day. The TR question does go a bit deeper, adding the night and day part (but still not being specific about number of hours, etc.). As I recall, the statement is read after the question is answered (at least I think that’s what happened in my latest interviews). There is a line in there about seeking guidance from the Holy Ghost about personal questions and that it’s between the person and the Lord. Frankly, the way confirmation bias works you could get the Lord to agree to almost anything (coming from a guy who is not about to chop off a drunk guy’s head with his own sword).

I agree that if one is totally honest she probably wouldn’t get away with never wearing them and going to the temple (but I think there are circumstances where it could happen). However, as Curt points out, I think one could honestly and authentically answer the TR question appropriately if worn in whatever way the individual “feels good” about or makes sense of. It is very much like tithing (and some other things) in that respect. A full tithing to you may be different than a full tithing to me, but as long as each of us feels good with God it doesn’t matter what some man is asking about.

[Anonymous]

squarepeg, I not only attend the temple, I am a weekly temple worker – and I am a coordinator at least once a month. I have no problem getting a recommend with how I view the garment. Personally, I wear it the traditional way – except for many nights. Not wearing it at night is a central part of my “marital life” – and it doesn’t violate anything about the temple or the covenants I have made.

[Anonymous]

Hi SquarePeg,

The thread that came to mind when I read your post is found here: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3217&hilit=garments+eating+disorder

It is about garments and eating disorders and it is where I first considered that garment wearing might not be for everyone.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

[…]I think one could honestly and authentically answer the TR question appropriately if worn in whatever way the individual “feels good” about or makes sense of. It is very much like tithing (and some other things) in that respect. A full tithing to you may be different than a full tithing to me, but as long as each of us feels good with God it doesn’t matter what some man is asking about.

It’s kind of like tithing, yes, but at a certain point, with tithing, you’re either paying 10% or you’re not paying 10%, you know? So if you’re wearing the garment neither day nor night, it seems to me like quite a stretch to say “yes” in the TR interview, even though the interview script says to wear it “as guided by the Spirit.” I was thinking about the article hawkgrrl linked to that makes so clear that problems with garments are relatively common, especially for women, and how unlikely most people are to discuss these challenges with Priesthood leadership. It got me thinking… Even though I miss being able to enter the temple, if I answer “yes” in a TR interview (justifying it with my belief that I’m ok with God), when I know perfectly well that that answer gives the Priesthood leader the impression that I wear the garment during at least some nights and days, I have lost an opportunity to raise awareness of something of potential importance that perhaps should be discussed. My husband pointed this out to me. If people never expressed to Priesthood leadership their concerns and problems with Church policies, some of the changes that we’ve seen happen may not have happened. For example, if nobody openly expressed a concern that maybe black men should hold the Priesthood, would President Kimball have prayed to know if it was time to revoke that ban? If Emma Smith hadn’t come out and told Joseph how problematic it was for her to clean up all the tobacco mess from the floor after his meetings, would we have the Word of Wisdom? If all of us who experience significant distress in trying to wear the garment told our Priesthood leaders about it, instead of answering “Yes”…what might happen? Maybe eventually, some complaints would work their way upwards until a decision is made to remove the “night and day” bit while leaving behind the “by the Spirit” bit, or to give local leaders permission to grant exceptions in certain cases (emotional issues, sensory processing issues, menstruation, yeast infections, etc…)

Of course, I completely understand that some people can’t have the discussion with Priesthood leadership and risk losing their temple recommend. Many people need to privately use a very liberal interpretation of the “rule” or guideline, in order to maintain peace with their TBM spouse, or in order to keep attending the temple for their own spiritual well-being (or for other reasons I’m not thinking of). But I am in a good position to have this discussion with my bishop, and maybe let him know about some of the other issues that I know others have, also. First, he is very understanding and empathetic. Second, although I miss the temple, I am not suffering to a significant degree by not entering right now. Third, my husband is inactive and has no testimony, so our relationship is in no way threatened by my temple worthiness status.

Old Timer wrote:

squarepeg, I not only attend the temple, I am a weekly temple worker – and I am a coordinator at least once a month. I have no problem getting a recommend with how I view the garment. Personally, I wear it the traditional way – except for many nights. Not wearing it at night is a central part of my “marital life” – and it doesn’t violate anything about the temple or the covenants I have made.

Curt, that’s awesome. It seems like you’re wearing it most of the time, and during at least some nights, so that seems enough to be able to answer “Yes” without guilt.

Thank you for that thread link. I can sure relate to the original poster who prayed about it and was surprised that it seemed God was more okay with her not wearing the garment than she was!! I agonized about it for such a long time, and when I finally poured out the anguish in prayer, the answer was, “Please don’t worry about it right now.” I thought, “Seriously? That’s it? Just don’t worry? Umm…ok…”

From that other thread, I really appreciate this that you said, Ray: “I’m at peace, specifically because I’ve discovered me – and I’ve found a way to be that “I am” among the group I want to call my own “our us”. Sure, some of that peace is due to the fact that I don’t preach my heterodoxy fully when “I am” is with “our us” – but that’s just because I don’t want to rock anyone else’s world by making mine collide with theirs. We can orbit around each other in close enough proximity to dance a good dance without me insisting on invading their spaces and causing a Big Bang, so to speak.”

Western culture emphasizes the individual good, and Eastern culture often emphasizes the collective good, but we really have to consider both, and sometimes that may mean refraining from expression of our individual beliefs in the group setting when the group may be better off ignorant of our unorthodoxy. But I wonder if some people would feel betrayed if they found out how far “out there” I am. It is all very difficult for me. It feels like walking a fine line with nothing but despair if you step off onto either side. And I feel like I can tell the difference between my opinions that are just individual interpretation or speculation, and my opinions that have come through the Holy Ghost…and I sometimes feel morally obligated to share the latter in spite of my fear. But I’m handling my relationship with the church differently this time. In a previous ward, I knew we would only be there for one year, so I decided to just jump in full throttle and play by all the rules (“one last time” I thought, lol) and pretend that I was true blue, and just see if that was going to be sustainable. It turned out NOT to be sustainable, much like garments. It wrecked me. That’s when we went totally inactive.

I also love hawkgrrl’s quote from the other thread: “I don’t object that the garment is sacred and should be treated with respect, but so are we.” I need to remember this when weighing pros and cons with a commandment.

Man, even reading these garment threads (no pun intended) is making me feel them again. But it’s still so helpful to engage with you all and hear your thoughts. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

squarepeg wrote:

For example, if nobody openly expressed a concern that maybe black men should hold the Priesthood, would President Kimball have prayed to know if it was time to revoke that ban?

I agree with that and yet, there were many people that took heat for “openly expressing a concern”. I understand that Kate Kelly wanted to have the brethren pray to know if it was time to open the priesthood to women… look where it landed her.

Unfortunately, those who might be listened to the most (the stalwarts) are also those with the most to lose if they admit to the bishop having individually adapted the wearing of the garment for their personal circumstances. I just feel fortunate that I have been permitted to baptize my children after not paying tithing in so long.

squarepeg wrote:

But I wonder if some people would feel betrayed if they found out how far “out there” I am. It is all very difficult for me. It feels like walking a fine line with nothing but despair if you step off onto either side. And I feel like I can tell the difference between my opinions that are just individual interpretation or speculation, and my opinions that have come through the Holy Ghost…and I sometimes feel morally obligated to share the latter in spite of my fear.

I think that I would be authentic without being in your face. Just be cool and relaxed about certain principles that are not bringing you closer to God. Other people can testify of their truthfulness and that’s just fine but you might not feel called to live that principle at this time. It may be a “commandment” unto others but the HG has not borne witness that it is a commandment unto you.

I find that most people may get a sense that you believe differently (in a non-threatening way) and yet almost nobody asks for specifics. You may be surprised how many people are happy not knowing the inner workings of your mind.

[Anonymous]

Roy, thank you. It’s very true that some people take a lot of heat for openly expressing their concerns that run contrary to current policy, even to the point of excommunication. When I first started searching for a possible way to stay in the church with my new perspective, I Googled “how to stay LDS no testimony” and read this beautifully written, encouraging essay that gave me a lot of hope, and it was by a guy, John Dehlin; but I got discouraged again when I searched a bit more and learned that John Dehlin had been excommunicated after writing that essay. So sad. I’m pretty confident that that won’t happen in my case; my bishop is too cool to do that, and I’m not planning on suggesting that he pray about garments or anything. I’m just going to be honest and open.

I’m really glad you were able to baptize your kids.

You’re right, I need to just be casual about issues where I can’t get on board with the mainstream view.

[Anonymous]

To be clear: John wasn’t excommunicated for writing an essay. In the end, he was openly fighting the leadership and had no desire to remain a member. We here don’t agree unanimously about whether or not he should have been excommunicated, but it was a long, long, long time in the making.

[Anonymous]

My son, who’s almost 12, has sensory issues related to autism, and we are specifically dealing with the problem of underwear right now. (It’s complicated by the fact that he’s almost 12, and he does NOT want to have a conversation about underwear!) And it occurred to me that he’s only got another six years before he has to give up control and have his underwear choices dictated by strangers for the rest of his life. That should be… interesting.

I could actually see garments being a deal breaker for this kid. Assuming that something else isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

To be clear: John wasn’t excommunicated for writing an essay. In the end, he was openly fighting the leadership and had no desire to remain a member. We here don’t agree unanimously about whether or not he should have been excommunicated, but it was a long, long, long time in the making.

Thanks. It is a little comforting to me if John Dehlin didn’t want to be in the church anymore when he was excommunicated. I guess I gathered from his essay that he did want to stay, but his feelings may well have shifted over time. It was sure a let-down to me, though, to learn that the person who had written that essay on how to stay, that helped me so much, ended up not staying.

Joni wrote:

I could actually see garments being a deal breaker for this kid. Assuming that something else isn’t.

It is hard, sometimes, navigating our own faith crises…and then there is this whole additional dimension of helping our kids navigate faith, as well. My parents were so hard-line while I was growing up. I have to consciously fight my tendency to default to what my parents did, in terms of my kids and their relationship to the church. My 11-year-old deals with depression, anxiety, and hearing loss. He told me recently that he thinks he is probably an atheist. I have no idea what role faith will play for him, long term. I just know that whatever happens, I want to be supportive and loving, not disappointed and angry. My heart goes out to you and your son; parenting a child with ASD involves tremendous amounts of stress – I hope that you and he find good solutions, and peace.

[Author]

Posts