Can I complain about garments?

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

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.

Maybe there’s some way to apply Ray’s “Be the Lake, Not the Glass” idea to this. There is a certain amount of zealotry and scrupulosity in every organization. Instead of packing so much of it into the garment glass, let it disperse and go where the current takes it.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

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.

Only on the internet: Oh, I forgot you were a nudist. 😆 Well, if another man cares to answer the question….

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Well, if another man cares to answer the question….

Well…honestly…if the change came down and it was a huge drastic lifestyle impact to me….well…I’d think the change was too much and the church was losing it. If the change was kinda uncomfortable but I could deal with it…then I can do that and just focus on the positives.

Perhaps that is how the church makes changes…slowly…not too much…a little at a time…perhaps the church knows I’m a frog and knows there is only one way to boil me.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Just let everyone make their own cost/benefit analysis and make their own decisions more often.

I know it might be over-emphasis, but it’s worth noting again that the Handbook actually says that how and when to wear the garment is up to the individual member.

Ironically, in this case, we are the ones who are in agreement with the official Church statement, when all is said and done. Whenever the topic has come up in a group in which I am participating, I say, simply and gently, that the handbook leaves it up to the members – and, therefore, it’s none of the group’s business how individuals choose to wear the garment. If someone pushes back, I simply grin and say:

Quote:

I want to follow the prophet.

Those who know me well chuckle; those who don’t can’t figure out how to respond; the conversation generally ends at that point.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Well, if another man cares to answer the question….

I think the answer for me would be that I would probably not wear them and give up on having a temple recommend. I figure that there will be a nice crowd that is also not allowed in the temple if someone I am close to is married there. I don’t see it coming though. The trend seems to be the other direction. They (or the PR department) has said I can drink Coke.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

Just let everyone make their own cost/benefit analysis and make their own decisions more often.

I know it might be over-emphasis, but it’s worth noting again that the Handbook actually says that how and when to wear the garment is up to the individual member.

Ironically, in this case, we are the ones who are in agreement with the official Church statement, when all is said and done. Whenever the topic has come up in a group in which I am participating, I say, simply and gently, that the handbook leaves it up to the members – and, therefore, it’s none of the group’s business how individuals choose to wear the garment. If someone pushes back, I simply grin and say:

Quote:

I want to follow the prophet.

Those who know me well chuckle; those who don’t can’t figure out how to respond; the conversation generally ends at that point.

Yes, I’d like them to emphasize the “up to the individual member” part and get rid of the “day and night” reference entirely. They send mixed messages.

[Anonymous]

One Step wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

Just let everyone make their own cost/benefit analysis and make their own decisions more often.

I know it might be over-emphasis, but it’s worth noting again that the Handbook actually says that how and when to wear the garment is up to the individual member.

Ironically, in this case, we are the ones who are in agreement with the official Church statement, when all is said and done. Whenever the topic has come up in a group in which I am participating, I say, simply and gently, that the handbook leaves it up to the members – and, therefore, it’s none of the group’s business how individuals choose to wear the garment. If someone pushes back, I simply grin and say:

Quote:

I want to follow the prophet.

Those who know me well chuckle; those who don’t can’t figure out how to respond; the conversation generally ends at that point.

Yes, I’d like them to emphasize the “up to the individual member” part and get rid of the “day and night” reference entirely. They send mixed messages.

They would do good to (re) remove the part about “gardening”. It was in for a while, then taken out, then put back in.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

[

… the Handbook actually says that how and when to wear the garment is up to the individual member.

A few unusual questions:

* Could a person wear garments made for those of the opposite sex if for some reason they fit better or had more agreeable material?

* Can a SWAT team policeman dye his garments completely black for when he’s on the job at night?

* Is sewing the “fly” closed on a men’s garment altering the garment?

I’ve been asked all three of these questions and my response was it’s between you and the Lord although I have to admit I squirmed a little at the first one. The handbook is contradictory and besides when I went through the temple I didn’t agree to the handbook in the covenants I made there.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

A few unusual questions:

* Can a SWAT team policeman dye his garments completely black for when he’s on the job at night?

Brian Johnson wrote:

Non-white military garments have been around at least 20 years. I had them when I enlisted in the Army back in 1992. They were brown; the same color and cut as the standard issue t-shirt worn with BDU’s (combat / work uniform).

At that time, the symbols were still sewn though. I only had a couple people ever notice them.

I don’t know when they changed to the printed version on the inside. That was probably only a few years ago, but also not a super-recent change. It is surprising to a lot of people to find out that “official” garments might not be white, and that “eternal” and unchanging is a pretty short span of time.

found at http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?p=300480” class=”bbcode_url”>http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?p=300480

[Anonymous]

My garments have been non-white since about three months after I bought them!

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

My garments have been non-white since about three months after I bought them!

I had a missionary companion who had pink garments. Perhaps he should have paid more attention when his mom taught him to do laundry! (He didn’t know how to cook, either.)

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

A few unusual questions:

* Could a person wear garments made for those of the opposite sex if for some reason they fit better or had more agreeable material?

* Can a SWAT team policeman dye his garments completely black for when he’s on the job at night?

* Is sewing the “fly” closed on a men’s garment altering the garment?

I’ve been asked all three of these questions and my response was it’s between you and the Lord although I have to admit I squirmed a little at the first one. The handbook is contradictory and besides when I went through the temple I didn’t agree to the handbook in the covenants I made there.

Here’s what I found:

When searching out the options for military garments I found that servicewomen could chose to wear the garments designed for men or they could special order women’s garments using the military fabric. I think that answers the first question. Only available in sand color online (I guess they know the score ).

I can’t imagine that a person on a SWAT team would typically traipse around in nothing but their underwear. I’d imagine they’d have a few layers of black clothing on top of whatever they select for their underwear. That said, some googling yielded this public document:

Garment Guidelines for Military, Police, or Fire Fighters

Quote:

Police and Fire Fighter Uniform

You will need to purchase T-shirts and send them in for marking.

For military personnel, if you need a color other than sand you follow the same procedure as the police/firefighters.

Quote:

Marks will be sewn into white T-shirts and T-shirts for police and fire fighters. Marks will only be silk screened on the inside of colored T-shirts for military personnel.

And of course my global answer to all those questions:

It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission. Do what you want and take it up with the big man on the other side.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission. Do what you want and take it up with the big man on the other side.

A-freaking-men.

Sometimes, we really do ask too many questions and end up being commanded in nearly all things.

[Anonymous]

I think a lot of frustration is the result of the absolute opacity of the process. We don’t know anything about the design – we don’t know which parts are inspired (the markings?) and which are pragmatic (cap sleeves?) so we have to guess at it. The temple tells us almost nothing about the garment, yet the TR interview process asks if we are keeping the garment-related covenants that I don’t actually remember making. Sizing, cut, and fabric choices are subject to change at any time with no warning and no explanation. The garment survey was the first time in 15 years of G-wearing that I ever had the opportunity to give feedback… yet I heard about it through a non-correlated source (I think it was on Flunking Sainthood), the survey was only up for a week, and they limited the number of responses they would take. I left a lengthy and detailed response in the survey and I have no way of knowing who read my response, if anyone, and if any changes will be made in response to the survey. And: information about garments (such as how they are supposed to fit, wearing a bra over vs. under, wearing panties underneath during your period) is disseminated almost entirely through word of mouth. You can, of course, ask your bishop (about my underwear? I think not) or ask the old ladies at the Distribution Center, but the information you recieve may be strongly biased by personal opinion: you can ask two people and get two totally different responses. Wearing garments is supposed to be between me and the Lord, yet I have to answer to my bishop and SP about my underwear habits if I want to be considered worthy to enter the Lord’s house. And, as I think I’ve mentioned before, there is no way to express the least bit of dissatisfaction with ill-fitting, uncomfortable, unattractive underwear without having your personal worthiness questioned, at the very least. Heck, it happened in this very thread.

We tend to assume that the design of the garment was revealed wholecloth straight from God’s mouth to Beehive Clothing’s ears. I don’t know that *any* part of it was (gasp… even the marks! Didn’t we ‘borrow’ most of the temple ceremony from the Masons anyway?) This is a tendency in the Mormon Church… we assume that if we are doing something a certain way, it’s because that is the exact way God wants it done. As I like to remind my husband, that’s why it took us until 1978 to give black men the priesthood.

[Anonymous]

Joni, you don’t remember making a covenant about wearing the garment because you didn’t make one. None of us did.

[Author]

Posts