- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ann wrote:
I was referring to second-hand info, just so you know. Go to the 9/27/12 post at bycommonconsent by Margaret Blair Young. Comment #16.
Man…wish there was another source for this….
I must admit to occasionally having the thought “Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out the chruch was simply structured to create an ever growing under-wear monopoly?”
Looking at a modern business model, companies have found that there is a lot more money to be made in making people pay for something regularly than getting them to buy it once. i.e. People used to buy a radio then listen for free, now people buy a radio and pay for a satellite radio subscription
Stuff like that. There is a lot of money to be made in being the exclusive supplier of something that is needed regularly. Underwear is definitely one of those things.
rebeccad wrote:Looking at a modern business model, companies have found that there is a lot more money to be made in making people pay for something regularly than getting them to buy it once.
i.e. People used to buy a radio then listen for free, now people buy a radio and pay for a satellite radio subscription
Stuff like that. There is a lot of money to be made in being the exclusive supplier of something that is needed regularly. Underwear is definitely one of those things.
The other trick, as practised by sports clubs, electronic firms, software manufacturers etc is continual updates and changes.
Although I was intrigued by the report that Pres McKay almost rescinded the recommendation to wear garments day and night outside the temple, I had trouble navigating common consent to find it. After two tries I finally succeeded, and thought others might like to see it too. So here it is, enjoy: You know there is one easy solution to this garmy obsession. According to my mother, God rest her soul, who worked as a secretary in the church offices in the early 1950′s, President McKay and 10 of the 12 apostles had every intention of getting rid of them. Wear them only during temple sessions. The older generation could do as the pleased. But two apostle hold-outs, I won’t name them, refused and they didn’t want to take any action of this sort without 100% support. It really is a shame that two stubborn old men from half a century ago are the primary reason we have not abandoned this silly relic of the past.
For the record, being raised in Utah with an irrepressible congenital obsession of spotting immediately who is wearing them, I can tell you that very few people wear garments outdoors in Georgia where I now reside, especially during about 6 months of summer, including local leaders in bishoprics, stake presidencies, etc. The wearing of the garment could only be perpetuated in a cold dry climate by physically inactive men with uninterrupted access to good air conditioning. It is not very practical at all for physically active people living in humid tropical and subtropical climates where the majority of the church now resides.
I do not find it surprising in the least that Joseph Smith was not wearing them when he was murdered on a hot humid summer day. Strict garment wearing is rather incompatible with the realities of intense sexual activity typical in early marriage that often continues for years thereafter, pregnancy, lactation and also with the entire inherently disgraceful process of growing old and sick and dying. Hardly ‘family friendly.”
I don’t think the garment represents any obstacle to sexual infidelity; the LDS with LDS cheaters probably don’t think twice about them except in mockery, and the LDS with non-LDS cheaters probably find them intriguing. Much like tattoos some have placed in strategic locations to enhance their seduction.
I recommend a sensible course of action, not wearing them when it is not practical which might be most of the time for many circumstances and stop obsessing over it. Establish boundaries. If leaders or anyone else wants to obsess over undies, put it back on them.
Source info:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/09/27/i-do-so-wear-underpants/#more-38847 by Margaret Blair Young
Comment number 16,
Sept 27 2012
Thanks Dash for hunting up the thread. The challenge I see is that Margaret Young may well have the entire story correct, but we are 40 years post the experience and if anything the church leaders hold the trump card on how the garment is to be worn. Because it is specified before and in the recommend interview process, it over rides any other opinion, unless you choose to keep your selection of how and when you were the garment to yourself. I do find it interesting that 40 years have passed and this subject hasn’t been touched again. Years ago as a nieve young women I didn’t realize that garments weren’t supposed to be seen. One day in young women’s someone went off complaining about some store in our mall that no longer had separate dressing rooms for the fitting room. It was just locker room style. During the lesson it was driven home the importance of not letting anyone see them. Now today they play peek-a-boo under shorts all summer. Sad what this world has become
🙄 If they aren’t supposed to be seen, then there are lots of men sinning by wearing a white shirt to church. 
+1 Ray. mom3 wrote:One day in young women’s someone went off complaining about some store in our mall that no longer had separate dressing rooms for the fitting room. It was just locker room style. During the lesson it was driven home the importance of not letting anyone see them.
I would very much disagree with this approach. I understand that the garments represent the coat of skins that were given to Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness. I feel that a locker room is one of the few places that nakedness is perfectly appropriate (at least the locker rooms at the athletic club, here in Oregon). I would find it strange if the clothing that was given to cover the nakedness could not be seen – even in settings where the nakedness itself was ok.
This for me is also tied up in my attempt to present positive body images to my children (ages 7 and 5), something that I would find difficult to do if I were hiding behind closed doors all the time.
I didn’t know they weren’t supposed to be seen. What about the crew necked men’s garments that are so high you couldn’t help but show them? Since they have come out with the non-lace edged cotton women’s tops I sometimes wear that under a v-neck so that the top edge is visible (nothing significant) just looks like any other camisole.
My comment about white shirts is exactly why I don’t take it seriously when someone says they shouldn’t be seen. In theory, I don’t want to walk around showing my “underwear”, so I get it – but we’ve gone so far past that point as a culture that I just laugh silently and go with whatever is comfortable to me personally. Seriously, any man who wears a typical white shirt to work or church with typical garments underneath and then talks about not letting garments be seen hasn’t thought very hard about it – or is unconsciously sexist in his application of that standard.
There was a time when I thought that one of the roles of wearing the garment was to be seen by other believers. If you see the garment under the white shirt you know he’s one of us.
He can be trusted. Or, he is worthy to go to the temple & must be one of the good guys.
It is like a secret hand shake.
Quote:It is like a secret hand shake.
Similar . . .
Mike wrote:There was a time when I thought that one of the roles of wearing the garment was to be seen by other believers.
If you see the garment under the white shirt you know he’s one of us.
He can be trusted. Or, he is worthy to go to the temple & must be one of the good guys.
It is like a secret hand shake.
I know that masons would use the “signs” or handshakes to identify other masons. I do not know if this was in practice among the early church. I assume that there would be some overlap between masonry and mormonism during the Nauvoo period.
Maybe it’s me. Whenever I go to a new ward, I get the feeling sometimes that I’m getting a quick “look over” & interview. The quick “look over” is are you wearing the uniform. White shirt, tie & garment lines.
The interview is: “are you moving into the ward?” or, “are you visiting?” or, “are you taking the discussions with the Missionaries?”
Based on what we observe & the answers we receive, we respond accordingly.
I find myself doing the samething to others I meet too. No secret handshake is required.
I know, this is part of my paranoyia.
Mike wrote:There was a time when I thought that one of the roles of wearing the garment was to be seen by other believers.
If you see the garment under the white shirt you know he’s one of us.
He can be trusted. Or,
he is worthy to go to the temple & must be one of the good guys..
Not in the construction world…if you know the guy you are doing work for is LDS then you would watch out and try to get paid up front because you were likely to get screwed
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.