- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
If you step back and look at this objectively, we are debating whether or not we should wear underwear that fits us. Why? Because the leaders have made comments that have put restrictions on how much we are allowed to customize our underwear.
Hahahahaha! Good point SD! I know they try, but I don’t think that garment patterns take into consideration the VAST amount of body types there are in this world. Fortunately for me I have a pretty average body-type so finding garments that fit me well have been easy. Except when I was trying to breastfeed. what a headache THAT was.
That aside, isn’t it all about the symbols? It’s very clear where the symbols should be placed so if they aren’t where they should be, shouldnt it be ok to find a way to make sure they are placed correctly?
Also, I hate how womens garment sleeves are all different lengths and the neckline different heights. All my shirts are modest, but some garment styles show and others don’t. Should it be this hard??? (just me venting) GRRRR
A few thoughts. I’m short and overweight, therefor I wear large shirts to fit around my girth. The marks in my undershirts are not were described in the endowment. Some of the garment lines on men that are more overweight than I am are way below the knee. Those marks can’t be in the right place either.
Women can wear some real cleavage revealing clothing while wearing garments properly.
We are so afraid of legs, midrifffs, and shoulders. I’m almost surprised we don’t dress in clothing that covers everything between foot and neck with sleeves to the wrists.
Garments are underwear. They touch and collect some pretty nasty stuff. What is the big deal about them being on the floor with the rest of the dirty clothes? I understand not walking them but . . . .
Old-Timer wrote:I know this will appear to be parsing of the worst kind by some people here, but there is a HUGE difference in my mind between “garments should not touch the ground” (the question asked here) and “garments should be kept off the floor” (from the CHI linked in Thoreau’s comment – and thanks for the link, btw, since I completely forgot the CHI is available online now).
I wouldn’t think of leaving my garments lying around on the floor, but I have no problem with them touching the ground – even as I wish this particular “should” was not in the CHI. I get the respect factor in not “keeping them on the floor” – but I also get the interpretation that says, therefore, they never should touch the floor. It’s hard to condemn people who take the latter meaning from that statement.
“Treat the garment with respect” is good enough for me – and the current “should” probably happened because some member complained to some leader about her husband tossing his garments on the floor along with the rest of his dirty clothing. *sigh*
Ray,’
Just wondering. Ground versus floor, what do you see as the difference in intent. Or, how do you parse the difference?
I guess Ray has been lax in his duties. So I’ll step in to pick up the slack. Many good comments were made on this and related topics under:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1703&hilit=wash+garments And …. you also get to review Cwald’s personal bathing habits – so don’t miss out! (Welcome back Cwald
:wave: )Thanks Roy. Sheesh, I can’t believe I ever wrote that stuff in the other thread. What was i thinking?
It’s not “ground” vs. “floor” that is the issue for me. It’s “touching” vs. “kept off” that is the difference. I don’t see anything disrespectful about garments touching the floor or the ground, but I do see disrespt in throwing / dropping them on the floor and leaving them lying around the house with other clothing that is scattered on the floor. When I read “kept off the floor”, I picture something like a laundry basket or hamper – instead of a pile of clothes or clothing scattered on the floor. I see them treated as nothing more than the soiled jockey shorts that got kicked under the bed and turned into something really nasty.
Again, I don’t like that this kind of detail is included in the CHI, but I really do think I understand why it is – especially as worded. I think the leadership knows that the garment is underwear, in practical terms, but I think they really, really, really don’t want it to be treated like underwear – so we end up with things like this. I understand that.
My solution, as I said in the post I linked? Wear regular underwear and the garment over it. Women aready do that when they are menstruating and nursing, so I don’t see any way it could be anti-doctrinal.
Old-Timer wrote:Women aready do that when they are menstruating and nursing, so I don’t see any way it could be anti-doctrinal.
The lady giving the women the temple instruction (At the SLC temple, 2007) the day we got endowed told us that it was up to the individual whether they would like to wear their bras, etc, under or over the garment. If you can choose for the bra, I don’t see why the bottoms would be any different (For men or women). Of course how many layers do you want to wear?
I’m going to start wearing a wet-suit under mine. Just to keep them separated from my body parts. SilentDawning wrote:I’m going to start wearing a wet-suit under mine. Just to keep them separated from my body parts.
Have you ever tried to sit down in a wetsuit?
:think: I enjoy all these posts (sincerely…you guys are very smart and I appreciate your views…thanks for teaching me). This topic reminds me of many topics I have looked at and studied. It seems the more detailed and specific I get and dig into things, the further away from the truth I feel. I’m not sure why, or if that is just my inability to process things.
But I like the idea of respect for the garments and what they represent. I don’t like the details in the CHI and things said by people in the temple who are instructing us with specifics when we go through the first time and those stick with us the rest of our life as “commandments”. Specific church commandments seem further from the truth to me.
I enjoy digging into topics to get to the roots and search things out. But then, it seems, I have to pull back, put it in perspective, apply the spirit of the law to my thinking, and move on.
Garments, like many other Mormon things, have symbolism that can help us keep our minds pointed in a spiritual direction. The more literal I think of it, the less meaning they seem to have to me. Altering the garments doesn’t seem to be consistent with the symbols they have to me or the respect I should have for them. Having the church command me on where to put them or not put them is also not consistent to me with the symbolism and purpose they should have for me.
Yeah Heber, at the risk of being hubris (sp), let me quote myself. cwald wrote:This is one of those issues that afterallwecando should be aware of. I wonder if it is already on his list of 613 mormon commandments?
I’m not criticizing you SD for bringing this up, because I know it is a real issue and many many members care about this, but the very fact we even have to have these conversations at church or on boards or whatever, is just mind-boggling to me.
Quote:Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions
in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. Again, as the resident parser, I want to point out that the actual “rules” for alteration DON’T say, “Never alter the garment.” It says not to do so specifically so you can wear some clothing style that doesn’t work for garments that fit correctly (like, as an extreme example, cutting and resowing them in order to wear them under a swimsuit – which could be done if someone really wanted to take it to an extreme) or in a way that changes its “design”.
I understand and agree with those two “clarifications” completely.
Given the actual wording, it would be totally appropriate for a really short member who can’t buy garments that stop above the knee to shorten them in a way that kept the design and made them the same length as pretty much everyone else’s on them.
I share that only to show that it’s important to look at the actual wording and not end up exaggerating what the policy actually is.
Maybe Ray should help write the handbooks so there is no doubt or room for interpretation. 
No, he needs to write it so it is wide open to interpretation, with lots and lots of weasel words. Brown wrote:Can I just add how ridiculous it is that we are commanded not to “defile” our garments, when they are to be continually in direct contact with areas of our body that often emit foul substances? Underwear was designed as a barrier to protect our actual clothes and keep them nice from body fluids and waste and now we put these holy garments there instead? I sit there with the garments in my pits and crack all day, and then it is a sin to drop them on the floor?
:crazy: I have to comment on this one. I mean no disrespect to the garment, but they are supposed to be tough enough to protect us from all kinds of evil, danger, and harm, but they are not tough enough to handle being on the floor????? Doesnt make sense to me. Does Satan have control over floors like he does over water.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.