- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
rrosskopf wrote:
The garments are a gift from God.Lucky you. I had to pay for mine.
rrosskopf wrote:
HSAB wrote:
I put on the shorts and I feel disgusting, fat and ugly. I also feel like a boy.
It’s probably already been mentioned, but the original garment was more like a dress. Yet I don’t believe Adam felt like a girl. It just depends on one’s cultural programming.Ultimately, you are a Latter Day Saint, and your garments identify you as such. You should not be ashamed. The garments are a gift from God. Wear then with grattitude.
The garments are not comfortable for everyone. I know someone who has a medical condition where she sweats with physical contact due to certain materials. She tried several garment types and each one creates a reaction to her skin. She found it better to avoid garments unless she has something underneath them, etc. IMO (and having read opinions on this forum too), garments are a symbolic representation of covenants we’ve made in the temple, other than that they are just uncomfortable underwear.
Dismissing real concerns and issues individuals have is not helpful, in any setting. Mourning with those who mourn and comforting those who stand in need of comfort requires empathy and real understanding, sometimes – but those actions always require, at the bare minimum, a willingness to withhold judgment and sweeping, generalized advice. Sometimes, we can’t feel others’ pain, so all we can do is accept their struggles and sit with them in silent or relatively silent love. Daughter, I read your post and was thinking in my mind of what might be helpful to say in response. Then I got to the end and you said everything that I was thinking but better.
Quote:I don’t think I really have a question. I just really wanted to express my thoughts on the matter. What I have read of the thread has reminded me it’s not all or nothing. I can find some normal undies that work for me and wear them when I want and still wear garments for activities where I feel they are able to be worn with proper respect and sufficient comfort. It’s been tough thinking things through because so much of the church is framed in a false dichotomy: either I’m wearing garments 24/7 or I have abandoned wearing garments at all. I am finding a middle way. As with all things.
😆 😆 😆 :thumbup: grobert93 wrote:
The garments are not comfortable for everyone. I know someone who has a medical condition where she sweats with physical contact due to certain materials. She tried several garment types and each one creates a reaction to her skin. She found it better to avoid garments unless she has something underneath them, etc. IMO (and having read opinions on this forum too), garments are a symbolic representation of covenants we’ve made in the temple, other than that they are just uncomfortable underwear.
Did you know that you can have them custom made? I have a couple of pair that they custom made for me.Yes, that is an option, but it doesn’t solve many of the issues involved – especially for women. rrosskopf wrote:
grobert93 wrote:
The garments are not comfortable for everyone. I know someone who has a medical condition where she sweats with physical contact due to certain materials. She tried several garment types and each one creates a reaction to her skin. She found it better to avoid garments unless she has something underneath them, etc. IMO (and having read opinions on this forum too), garments are a symbolic representation of covenants we’ve made in the temple, other than that they are just uncomfortable underwear.
Did you know that you can have them custom made? I have a couple of pair that they custom made for me.
Including the material used, the dyes used to color it white, the fabric thickness and even removing the symbolism (due to it’s raised physical appearance) ? While I am grateful for flexibility with garment options (especially for those serving in the military for in a wheelchair for example), it’s the act of a thin and not-well designed under garment brushing against her skin that is the problem. Similar concept to jumping in a pool with a shirt on, then coming out and putting a dry shirt over the wet one.
grobert93 wrote:It’s the act of a thin and not-well designed under garment brushing against her skin that is the problem.
There seems to be a tendancy to treat every problem as if it is insurmountable. I don’t believe in that philosophy. Certainly there is a cost to faith. If your faith were free, it would be of little value to you. It is all too easy to come up with excuses. Laban can kill a hundred men; he can certainly kill us. Instead of dwelling on the negative, shouldn’t we encourage people? Literally give them the courage to act in faith?Not wanting to wear garments is not a “problem” that must be overcome. rrosskopf wrote:
There seems to be a tendancy to treat every problem as if it is insurmountable. I don’t believe in that philosophy.
I do not believe in that philosophy either. However, I look at a decision to wear garments at some times when it makes the most sense and not at others where it makes less sense as a great way to tackle the problem. It is every bit as valid as the decision another individual might make to have garments custom made. Because different people have different circumstances, body types, conditions, etc. etc. it only makes sense that what works for one person may not work for another.
rrosskopf wrote:
Instead of dwelling on the negative, shouldn’t we encourage people?
In my opinion, StayLDS is all about encouraging people. However, I think that we should be clear about what that means. We basically function as an online support group that encourages individuals to stay connected to Mormonism and to participate in their faith community to whatever degree they are able, is sustainable, and makes the most sense for them.Part of this encouraging takes the form of validating a form of middle way approach. Yesterday, in SM, the speaker said that, for her, the WoW included abstaining from all caffeinated beverages. Would it make sense for someone to quit the church because they could not give up Pepsi? Of course not! Especially because it is not doctrine to avoid caffeinated beverages despite what our church culture sometimes teaches.
Garments are similar in my mind. Is it even doctrine to wear them 24/7? Is it a requirement? This does not seem to have been the case historically. When did it change and for what reason? Was it a revelation or just somebody’s “good idea”? Would it make sense for someone to quit the church because they did not feel that they could conform to this artificial expectation?
Therefore, we “encourage” people to do what makes the most sense for them individually AND to continue being Mormon. That is StayLDS in a nutshell.
rrosskopf wrote:
grobert93 wrote:It’s the act of a thin and not-well designed under garment brushing against her skin that is the problem.
There seems to be a tendancy to treat every problem as if it is insurmountable. I don’t believe in that philosophy. Certainly there is a cost to faith. If your faith were free, it would be of little value to you. It is all too easy to come up with excuses. Laban can kill a hundred men; he can certainly kill us. Instead of dwelling on the negative, shouldn’t we encourage people? Literally give them the courage to act in faith?
While I understand where this attitude is coming from (since I was once a “have faith and it will work out” kind of person myself, it does lead to both unhealthy and even toxic ideas and expectations places on each other that may be out of context of the Lord’s initial desire. For those who believe in wearing the garment according to the instructions (letter of the law) given, there is no excuse. But there are others who believe that the Lord is more interested in our efforts to try. I don’t think the Lord will punish someone with a skin condition who is unable to wear garments, just as much as he probably wouldn’t punish someone who is physically disabled and unable to easily attend the temple frequently.
The world is not black and white, and I don’t believe the church is either. If the Lord is truly that strict to all of his children , then I truly believe a good majority of us would not qualify for the highest degree, even if we tried. Even with the atonement.
rrosskopf wrote:
There seems to be a tendancy to treat every problem as if it is insurmountable. I don’t believe in that philosophy. Certainly there is a cost to faith. If your faith were free, it would be of little value to you. It is all too easy to come up with excuses. Laban can kill a hundred men; he can certainly kill us. Instead of dwelling on the negative, shouldn’t we encourage people? Literally give them the courage to act in faith?
One of my favorite tweets was: “We all know that Joseph Smith didn’t wear his garments at Carthage, but did you also know that he never wore them during menopause?” You can’t faith your way out of a yeast infection which is a problem women face that seems to still have never been conceived of by the males who are overseeing the approval of designs. You can’t square that circle with a layer of fabric from hip to knees which is never healthy if that’s an issue. For health reasons, when women wore ankle length dresses, they did not wear underpants as female parts should not be covered in fabrics that can’t breathe. There are other health issues unique to women as well.
Please educate yourself or at minimum, don’t assume you know more than real women who have women’s bodies.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
One of my favorite tweets was: “We all know that Joseph Smith didn’t wear his garments at Carthage, but did you also know that he never wore them during menopause?” You can’t faith your way out of a yeast infection which is a problem women face that seems to still have never been conceived of by the males who are overseeing the approval of designs. You can’t square that circle with a layer of fabric from hip to knees which is never healthy if that’s an issue. For health reasons, when women wore ankle length dresses, they did not wear underpants as female parts should not be covered in fabrics that can’t breathe. There are other health issues unique to women as well.
That’s a very good point. It’s been embarrassing how little men understand female anatomy when enacting those sort of rules. It reminded me of how Moses (or was it God?) didn’t understand how hymens work, and commanded the stoning of brides who didn’t have them torn open on their wedding night (Deut. 22:13-21).
Oops!If garments give you skin irritation, infections, rashes, etc, isn’t that as sure a sign as any that they are not of God?
😈 Nobody answer that last question. Sarcasm is fine here, but some people might not recognize it as such and answer it seriously. 
🙂 
:thumbup: hawkgrrrl wrote:
Please educate yourself or at minimum, don’t assume you know more than real women who have women’s bodies.
I have nothing against designing more comfortable garments. I have a wife. She is going through menopause. You don’t think I know the issues? I’m pretty sure that all those men who designed women’s garments had wives as well, and I’m not entirely sure they weren’t designed by women. I can’t picture men doing the sewing in 1840. So please – fill free to explain how it is all the fault of ignorant men.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.