- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The LDS Church released a survey this past week, asking for member’s opinions on the temple garment and how it can be improved to increase comfort and practicality. Is this another new side of the church? Taking something sacred like G’s and asking for input on how to make them more comfortable and practical and less problematic for members, as opposed to telling members to be faithful and sacrifice personal desires or comforts for what the Lord has revealed through inspired priesthood leaders?
What do you make of this church move? Good/Bad/Whatever?
I think it’s kind of nice, but it’s not earth shattering. Still, I am not aware that this has been done int he past so maybe it is another baby step. The survey itself seems to be more concerned with comfort as opposed to style. I wear men’s cotton/poly mostly and find them to be pretty comfortable with the possible exception of an occasional tag. I’d love to see some style change (a sleeveless top, for instance) but I don’t think that’s really what they’re asking.
(And it appears you can’t answer the survey any more.)
A small historical note. Pres. Joseph F. Smith had a sign posted at the SL temple that only traditional neck to wrists to ankles garments were acceptable and to be worn to the temple. When Heber J. Grant became president he had it taken down and burned. GBSmith wrote:A small historical note. Pres. Joseph F. Smith had a sign posted at the SL temple that only traditional neck to wrists to ankles garments were acceptable and to be worn to the temple. When Heber J. Grant became president he had it taken down and burned.
In the past, those things were done by leaders, and if a change is made it comes from the top down, and the masses follow and support. And if members complain or try to suggest, local bishops advise to follow and obey, not try to change the will of God. I was taught it doesn’t work that way. Revelation flows down, not up.I know past prophets and GA’s would solicit input from RS or others, but that was when they would quietly ask in personal conversation or interviews.
This is interesting to me they are surveying members for feedback openly. Are they OK now with that being an influence to knowing God’s will? Are some things about the temple changeable without revelation?
Garment design has always changed due to members lobbying for change. The history of it clearly shows that. I suspect this was in part due to a post I did on BCC: http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/13/female-garments-the-underwear-business/ hawkgrrrl wrote:Garment design has always changed due to members lobbying for change. The history of it clearly shows that.
What I hope history will show is that garment
wearingalso changed due to members’ lobbying. I responded to the survery and commented that I don’t wear garments all the time, and why I made that choice. I hope I made it clear that I value them, but the requirement of an institution that I wear them 24/7 doesn’t trump all else. I wish they would come here and read some of the garment threads. I was refreshed and encouraged by the feedback I got here when this finally bubbled up to my consciousness.
I’m really glad they did the survey.
:thumbup: I am 100% in favor of this sort of survey. Obviously, the exact construction of garments is not a command written in eternal stone, so I’m happy they asked for input. I may not be qualified to comment this, since I haven’t worn garments in some time. But, I can say that when I stopped wearing them, I was amazed how good it felt. Not because I wasn’t wearing garments, but because I’d forgotten how much more comfortable Hanes or whatever else is than a pair of garments! I understand the symbolism of the garments, and how certain things won’t be changed, but they don’t HAVE to be uncomfortable and ill-fitting. I hope they start by going tagless! And maybe they could get rid of the underwear-version of mom jeans! 🙂 But, whatever they end up doing, I do think it was great to see that they at least asked for comments, whether they end up listening to the comments or not. It’s refreshing to hear the top brass slowly start to open up to what the members actually want, instead of jamming things down our throats. I think it was a positive move.
I took the survey the other week. They weren’t soliciting input on changing the more fundamental aspects of the garments, they were more after comfort and fit (seam chafing, etc.). I let them know in detail exactly how they should go back to the drawing board on the “extra support” spandex bottoms.
Side question… what in the heck is the flap on men’s underwear for? Presumably to facilitate going to the bathroom, but do people still do that? I ask because the material for the extra support spandex Gs ran hot. Really hot. Doubling up the material in this area made things unbearable.
It isn’t there anymore on any underwear I’ve seen in a long time – and it isn’t there on the garment. nibbler wrote:Side question… what in the heck is the flap on men’s underwear for? Presumably to facilitate going to the bathroom, but do people still do that? I ask because the material for the extra support spandex Gs ran hot. Really hot. Doubling up the material in this area made things unbearable.
Ha ha!! I never imagined we’d be talking about the fly on men’s underwear on here!
😆 According to wikipedia, pants originally had no kind of fly at all, so men had to pull their pants down to take a leak. Then, they started building a codpiece into the front of the pants, so they could just unbutton the codpiece to tinkle (this was before the days of underwear). The codpiece was eventually replaced by button up flies, and zipper flies. Underwear kept the open fly so men could still use the fly on their pants without having to drop their pants to urinate.
So, there you have it. The history of the underwear fly! What an exciting way to start a weekend!
You should hear my sparkling dinner conversations. Old-Timer wrote:I am 100% in favor of this sort of survey. Obviously, the exact construction of garments is not a command written in eternal stone, so I’m happy they asked for input.
if the construction of garments was never written in stone, why have so many bishops places so much emphasis on wearing them correctly? As if rolling the sleeves or pinning them was such a big deal? They seem to send the message the construction was revealed by prophets and so we should follow it and not worry about earthly things like comfort or fabric. Isn’t that fair to say, since it was stressed so much to youngsters?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To me, it reveals the control mentality of the church. “Things can be changed when we so say. If you try to change it on your own, you are showing you have shaky faith.”
Just the way it seems to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Heber13 wrote:To me, it reveals the control mentality of the church.
“Things can be changed when we so say. If you try to change it on your own, you are showing you have shaky faith.”
Just the way it seems to me.
It seems to me many take it farther than, “shaky faith” and instead say you are working against God. But what happens when you feel that God is telling you something isn’t right? (rhetorical question)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.