Can I complain about garments?

[Anonymous]

NightSG wrote:

Joni wrote:

The real problem is that LDS women have so many aspects of their spiritual, personal, and sexual lives controlled by a group of elderly men they’ve never met.

OK, snowflake, I hate to break it to you, but I’m not a woman, nor was I LDS for the first 35 years of my life. Guess what; I have to wear things I don’t always care for because of people I’ve never met. Short of finding some way to live from mid June through at least late September in a nudist colony, that’s not going to change either. Deal with it or don’t; that is the choice we’re given, but playing the “I’m dominated by old men” victim card gets old before you finish saying it.

I have to say I disagree with this; to me hearing people’s honest struggles dealing with the Church never gets old, what gets old is seeing many Church members put on a happy face and pretend everything is alright when it really isn’t. In fact, it looks like one of the main reasons the Church has been able to get away with telling members what to do and believe to the extent that it has so far, to its own detriment, is precisely because so many active members have been willing to put up with so much of what they are asked to without much resistance while many of the ones that aren’t as easy to tell what to do have already voted with their feet and been largely ignored or dismissed by Church leaders as if they were the ones with a problem.

Seriously I don’t see how the suggestion to, “deal with it or don’t” does anything to help in this case. It’s just not that simple because Joni already said she didn’t feel like not wearing garments most of the time if ever was even an option because she was worried about how her believing husband would react in that case and it’s not that easy to accept looking forward to another 40 years or more of something she doesn’t like just because it is expected in the Church. So yes she absolutely is a victim here because her freedom has effectively been taken away and it sounds like she doesn’t feel like she has any choice but to suffer in silence primarily because of the way the Church is at this point. That’s the most interesting thing about this thread to me, it’s yet another example of how the Church relies so much on social pressure and fear to enforce strict compliance with their established rules and routines with little or no consideration ever given to whether many members are actually satisfied with the way things are or not.

[Anonymous]

I’ll admit that the garments are probably the aspect of the Church that I have the hardest time with. Like others have voiced, I love, love, love the temple and all that it teaches and represents. There just seems to be a disconnect when it comes to having identical feelings for the Garment. Yes, for some it’s all one and the same and that’s great. For me, sometimes I wonder. I didn’t need a 24/7 reminder when I got baptized or sealed to my wife. I don’t think I would lose perspective on my temple covenants by not having them as a reminder. Anyway, I thought I’d share some of my thoughts.

I love my wife and I’m attracted to her. Would I be more attracted to her if she were a bra and panties all day? Yes. I don’t even try to touch the small of her back or her legs/thighs anymore. A pair of 17 year olds going steady would probably have more skin contact (and access!) than us on a typical night of cuddling! Would undressing at the end of the day together be more exciting? She’s occassionally shown me what she looks like in just a bra and panty and it was way more enticing. I wouldn’t attribute it to novelty either. Seeing her in Garments as a novelty on our honeymoon did not have near the same effect. Am I jealous of non-LDS husbands? Yes, a little bit.

I didn’t grow up in the Church and I’m not sure if it’d make a difference seeing my mother wearing them but I think it’s a sad that the Church inserts these as a barrier. For many, they are unusual and foreign. Those characteristics have a negative effect on intimacy. One of the largest reasons for a change might be its perception from Non-members, investigating non-members to be specific. In today’s internet world, the garments are not a secret. Whether I were investigating or especially if my spouse were the one investigating, the introduction of the garments would be a major red flag to investigating further. Let’s face it. No one wants their religion to dictate their underwear much less the spouse’s!

What would I suggest? Something closer to the Scout policy. Scouts do not wear their uniforms 24/7 but should adhere to their virtues regardless. We could reasonably expect the same for adult LDS.

So we’d wear them to Church activites like Sundays or when we’re representing the Church in an official capacity. If anything, it’d make them more meaningful than just part of a daily routine.

[Anonymous]

One Step wrote:

I don’t think I would lose perspective on my temple covenants by not having them as a reminder.

Hi, One Step :wave: Glad you’re here.

I think I’m remembering correctly a story about the transition from wrist-to-ankle garments. At some temples there were big signs nailed up about people not being admitted if they were shortening them, with dire language about the consequences for such disobedience. But people just kept on doing it and eventually signs came down. Of course no one suggests now the ones who shortened them forgot their commitments. Some people now want to shorten the time they wear them. Just like people were free to continue wearing the old-fashioned ones when most went to short sleeves, couldn’t wearing them every waking and sleeping moment is still be an option for those who choose it, but give us all latitude?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Scouts do not wear their uniforms 24/7 but should adhere to their virtues regardless. We could reasonably expect the same for adult LDS.

I think that is a great analogy.

[Anonymous]

I do think there are some people that just LOVE to be showing their faith through Abrahamic sacrifices. For them doing things like wearing uncomfortable underwear is actually exciting. If it gets in the way of marital intimacy, that an added benefit as it keeps that pesky “natural man” in check! And they are even more excited when they can pull it off and they see others that can’t/won’t and they have a sigh of relief that they are “in the righteous line ahead of ‘those others’ “. When I think of those in this state, I used to have more disgust. Now I look at them and feel that what is driving this is more driven by fear and lack of self-confidence (and maybe a bit of OCD) and I feel more empathetic towards them.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

One Step wrote:

I don’t think I would lose perspective on my temple covenants by not having them as a reminder.

Hi, One Step :wave: Glad you’re here.

I think I’m remembering correctly a story about the transition from wrist-to-ankle garments. At some temples there were big signs nailed up about people not being admitted if they were shortening them, with dire language about the consequences for such disobedience. But people just kept on doing it and eventually signs came down. Of course no one suggests now the ones who shortened them forgot their commitments. Some people now want to shorten the time they wear them. Just like people were free to continue wearing the old-fashioned ones when most went to short sleeves, couldn’t wearing them every waking and sleeping moment is still be an option for those who choose it, but give us all latitude?

Joseph F. Smith insisted that only wrist/ankle garments be worn in the temple but when Heber J. Grant became president he ordered the signs taken down and burned. Shortened garments for daily wear were authorized at about that time but interestingly when I was endowed in 1964 in Idaho Falls I had to wear the long garments complete with ties rather than buttons and peter pan collar. As I mentioned in an earlier post it’s the marks that matter. The style is only a matter of culture and bias.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

The style is only a matter of culture and bias.

Agreed.

But also do not dismiss the points made that when the current culture attaches the use and acceptance of the current style to a symbol of faithfulness and worthiness, the pressures from the culture are real to be dealt with. One sometimes has to debate inwardly if it is worth it to just go along with what others are saying is important, or stand up for personal feelings and risk creating waves in the environment. That struggle is, however, independent of the concept of garments, marks, and purpose. But it is real.

I like the reminders in history that things change. Helps to give me some comfort that if I do feel strongly enough to take a stand and wear them how I wish…eternal salvation is not likely at stake, regardless of what others think. Letting go of that is liberating.

(PS—2 points for the Peter Pan reference…nicely done!)

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

Joseph F. Smith insisted that only wrist/ankle garments be worn in the temple but when Heber J. Grant became president he ordered the signs taken down and burned. Shortened garments for daily wear were authorized at about that time but interestingly when I was endowed in 1964 in Idaho Falls I had to wear the long garments complete with ties rather than buttons and peter pan collar. As I mentioned in an earlier post it’s the marks that matter. The style is only a matter of culture and bias.

(I wish there was a typeface called Not Trying To Pick A Fight.) How would you feel if the word came down tomorrow to wear these? You might be okay with it. I think I’m guessing correctly that my husband would balk. That is the feeling of a lot of women stepping into garment bottoms. Sorry. Kind of TMI.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

GBSmith wrote:

The style is only a matter of culture and bias.

Agreed.

But also do not dismiss the points made that when the current culture attaches the use and acceptance of the current style to a symbol of faithfulness and worthiness, the pressures from the culture are real to be dealt with. One sometimes has to debate inwardly if it is worth it to just go along with what others are saying is important, or stand up for personal feelings and risk creating waves in the environment. That struggle is, however, independent of the concept of garments, marks, and purpose. But it is real.

I like the reminders in history that things change. Helps to give me some comfort that if I do feel strongly enough to take a stand and wear them how I wish…eternal salvation is not likely at stake, regardless of what others think. Letting go of that is liberating.

(PS—2 points for the Peter Pan reference…nicely done!)

I agree that it’s a balancing act and it’s tricky because there is good on both sides of the scale.

[Anonymous]

A good friend of mine made the wise observation that garments shouldn’t be a Mormon hair shirt. We shouldn’t have to be miserable to show our devotion. What happened to the “plan of happiness”? (Of course, plenty of killjoys are quick to point out that the happiness is meant to come later, and there are no guarantees. Well, some plan!)

Quote:

What would I suggest? Something closer to the Scout policy. Scouts do not wear their uniforms 24/7 but should adhere to their virtues regardless. We could reasonably expect the same for adult LDS.

Watch it, or we’ll be told we have to start wearing scout uniforms 24/7! Actually, scouting is one area of the church where we are less scrupulous than our fellow non-LDS cohorts. Anybody notice that it’s incredibly easy to get merit badges and awards in LDS scouting, but if you are in a non-LDS troop it’s much more like a private military with exacting zealotry?

Let me just add two positive comments about garments. These are real things women deal with in “normal” underwear that aren’t an issue in garments: 1) VPL (visible panty lines) and 2) wedgies.

[Anonymous]

Personally, even with all the misgivings I have about garments, part of the most frustrating things is that they are rarely discussed by the Church. We spend more time wearing them than reading the scriptures, attending Church, you name it and yet talking about them, especially in a non-positive way is generally considered taboo. The unspoken rule seems to be “just get used to them”. For many of us, the feelings of being unheard, ignored and essentially censored leave us feeling unloved and bit like we don’t belong.

Recently there was a survey done on the garments. While the focus was on fit and fabric, I imagine that many wrote in to express their feelings on the garments themselves. I’m interested and admittedly holding my breath in hopes that we will actually see them addressed in some fashion. I’m not saying that they have to change anything. Just address the issue!

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Let me just add two positive comments about garments. These are real things women deal with in “normal” underwear that aren’t an issue in garments: 1) VPL (visible panty lines) and 2) wedgies.

It’s true. There are some benefits. And if someone wanted to keep wearing them as they are now, more power to them. Just let everyone make their own cost/benefit analysis and make their own decisions more often.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

These are real things women deal with in “normal” underwear that aren’t an issue in garments: 1) VPL (visible panty lines) and 2) wedgies.

I thought those were “positives”! 😆 Actually if you go google “people of Walmart” you will see some that forget the “lines”, they have visible panties – and it usually makes you sick. I think it is classified as “anti-porn”.

[Anonymous]

One Step wrote:

I imagine that many wrote in to express their feelings on the garments themselves.

I did. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

GBSmith wrote:

Joseph F. Smith insisted that only wrist/ankle garments be worn in the temple but when Heber J. Grant became president he ordered the signs taken down and burned. Shortened garments for daily wear were authorized at about that time but interestingly when I was endowed in 1964 in Idaho Falls I had to wear the long garments complete with ties rather than buttons and peter pan collar. As I mentioned in an earlier post it’s the marks that matter. The style is only a matter of culture and bias.

(I wish there was a typeface called Not Trying To Pick A Fight.) How would you feel if the word came down tomorrow to wear these? You might be okay with it. I think I’m guessing correctly that my husband would balk. That is the feeling of a lot of women stepping into garment bottoms. Sorry. Kind of TMI.

Since I’m a nudist and when clothed usually don’t wear shorts except on vacation, it wouldn’t matter much to me but after watching Big Love, I can see it would definitely be a deal breaker for women.

[Author]

Posts