NOM

Here's the current temple recommend spiel:

The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.

It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.

An outward expression... that's worn "beneath the outer clothing," so not so outward after all.

But here's the bits I wanted to focus on:

1. "can reasonably be done"
2. People get personal revelation from the HG to answer questions about the garment.

It's the smallest of hops to say that I received personal revelation that indicated that wearing garments is unreasonable except for maybe at church on Sunday to keep the Pharisees' blood pressure down while they inspect people's outward expressions of inward commitments.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:00 pm

Maybe God doesn't care about your underwear.

You would think God would be content worrying about exploding supernovas.

Do you value obedience to committees above common sense, personal freedom, revelation, and scripture?

It is hard to have a man-made religion without listening to the men. Mormons do what the committees tell them.

nibbler wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:40 pm

Here's the current temple recommend spiel:

The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.

It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.

...

That might be the speil, but according to the LD$-Inc. website, as of 2020, this is the actual TR question:

13: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?

Has that changed?

If I remember correctly, the question I answered for too many years was something about wearing Polygamy Pantaloons day and night as "covenanted" in the temple. Newsflash: There was never an actual "covenant" in the temple to wear Polygamy Pantaloons. Funny how they've changed the question slightly, but still use the word covenant, then try and dodge by saying "as instructed." Kinda dodgy. (Just like Joseph.)


Edit: And... From the spiel: "It is a sacred privilege" blah blah blah. Privilege??? To paraphrase the Elder Inigo Montoya: "I don't think that word means what you thinkit means."

I think there's the actual temple recommend question but the interviewer is instructed to read that spiel in addition to the question.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:35 pm

I can specifically recall following the guidance of the church and asking Godde for direction and personal revelation when I was questioning wearing the garment as instructed. As I prayed, I received a prompting to turn on the TV. No sooner had I done that, the answer to my prayers came in the form of a commercial and later confirmed that night as I dreamed in Heather grey. I just knew that my prayers were answered.

https://youtu.be/hd_hSJ0GipI?si=cgLlqwejbC96mQIO

Whoa! So many parallels to Lehi's dream:

-Wandering in the wilderness
-Angel (the girl in white)
-The iron rod (represented here by a rope, exactly like in Joseph Sr.'s version of the dream)
-Following it leads you to a tree
-A body of water alongside the path
-Fruit that is exceptional beyond any fruit you have ever experienced (is sings and plays musical instruments)
-Partaking of the fruit (listening to the fruit's music rather than eating it)...
-...fills you with great joy (everybody is smiling, singing, etc.)

Unfortunately, sometimes garment wearing becomes a true outward expression of an inane insistence on obedience.

I've seen some awful examples, as I'm sure we all have.

I'm so so glad I no longer have to worry about tucking the sleeves under the sleeves, looking for longer shorts, or feeling a little guilty feeling more comfortable without them. Even though I'm tall, I found that buying the "short" bottoms helped tremendously, and were pretty much like regular boxer briefs. But the tops, oh dear lord the tops, that extra layer of material esp in the summer.. just drained the fun out of a lot of things and you don't realize how much until you take the damned things off.

My wife always disliked them and they never fit right.

But it's a commandment right? Oh, wait, a covenant rather. But wait, when did I promise to wear these damned things? I didn't? I was just instructed?? Who's idea was this? Seems like a possible well meaning idea that became a dumb tradition.

I'm slightly embarrassed to say that I still have a couple of pairs of the damned things. On the few occasions I attend church, the tops aren't horrible under a dress shirt. However, the last few times I've attended, I wear other things.

When I wad a child, I dressed as a child. When I was not a child, I gave up childish things.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:00 pm

Questions to ask:

-Where in scripture does it tell you how to wear your underwear? Where are garments even mentioned?
-Did Joseph Smith receive a direct revelation that tells us how to wear garments?
-Has any prophet declared that the voice of God told him that garments must be worn 24/7?
-Has the church ever changed policies regarding garments (e.g. full length, 1 piece, 2 piece, recent yoyoing of recommend question)?
-Has God told you directly via personal revelation, without room for interpretation, that you must wear garments 24/7?

I forgot one:
Does the church stand behind the superstition that garments actually provide protection from physical harm? (spoiler: they made an official statement that popped that balloon)

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:55 am

...
Does the church stand behind the superstition that garments actually provide protection from physical harm? (spoiler: they made an official statement that popped that balloon)

Yet the current spiel they read before gaslighting folks about what they supposedly promised to do in the temple still hints at protection:

The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.

It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.

I looked into my seer stone last night and am making the following prediction:

They will double down on garment wearing this weekend at general conference and they will have a woman do it because they want a woman (who is willing to say what the men wan them to say) to try and get the women of the church into compliance.

The giant meteorite damaged none of the body portions covered by the sacred garments.

I mentioned this to my wife (she's been out for a while) and she laughed.
How will they know? and No Yoga pants? what's next--no levis?

so we looked it up. Sister missionaries could only start wearing pant suits in 2012 to proselytize, but not to church services.
Female Church employees could only start wearing pants to work in 2017.

so...ya. Push the leadership, they'd ban women wearing pants. which makes sense, since it only became popular in the 1960s/70s...by the time it was mainstream, Rusty was in his 50s so it was his grand daugthers thinking it was normal. Yoga pants probably drive him insane.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 05, 2024 11:31 am

I looked into my seer stone last night and am making the following prediction:

They will double down on garment wearing this weekend at general conference and they will have a woman do it because they want a woman (who is willing to say what the men wan them to say) to try and get the women of the church into compliance.

Please report back on this for the benefit of those of us who are keeping their distance from conference.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 06, 2024 1:01 pm

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 05, 2024 11:31 am

I looked into my seer stone last night and am making the following prediction:

They will double down on garment wearing this weekend at general conference and they will have a woman do it because they want a woman (who is willing to say what the men wan them to say) to try and get the women of the church into compliance.

Please report back on this for the benefit of those of us who are keeping their distance from conference.

Sounds like this indeed happened in the morning session... a prophet I have become.

The deeper concern from members not wearing garments all the time is that of jealousy. Nobody likes garments. They are worn as a sacrifice they are making. When women see other women wearing yoga pants all day and athletic wear instead of garments, they instantly become jealous. If there was a new rule where garments are only to be worn to the temple, those jealous women would instantly stop wearing their garments….no more need for the sacrifice.

2bizE wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 06, 2024 5:11 pm

The deeper concern from members not wearing garments all the time is that of jealousy. Nobody likes garments. They are worn as a sacrifice they are making. When women see other women wearing yoga pants all day and athletic wear instead of garments, they instantly become jealous. If there was a new rule where garments are only to be worn to the temple, those jealous women would instantly stop wearing their garments….no more need for the sacrifice.

Bingo. This is what I think too. The "I had to sacrifice to wear these stupid things, you should too" school of thought.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 06, 2024 5:51 pm

2bizE wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 06, 2024 5:11 pm

The deeper concern from members not wearing garments all the time is that of jealousy. Nobody likes garments. They are worn as a sacrifice they are making. When women see other women wearing yoga pants all day and athletic wear instead of garments, they instantly become jealous. If there was a new rule where garments are only to be worn to the temple, those jealous women would instantly stop wearing their garments….no more need for the sacrifice.

Bingo. This is what I think too. The "I had to sacrifice to wear these stupid things, you should too" school of thought.

Oaks conference talk about garments and COVENANTS was really pounding the point that COVENANTS are important.

They just can’t stand that younger women are less willing to let ancient old men be the boss of them. Well take a lesson from Star Wars that the more you tighten your grip the more they slip through your fingers.

I remember once at a church camp out, I was comfortably garment free, and I over heard two other women discussing garments and what were the least uncomfortable styles for camping in the hot summer. I mean, really complaining and obviously envious of the YW running around in knee length shorts and single t-shirt, instead of long pants, and doubled up on top. They were obviously full believing, and close friends because it was the kind of conversation only shared with very trusted, very close friends. I mean, you would never verbalize to your bishop just how much you wish you had never gone through the temple. But it was really sad that they obviously hated them so much, but still felt forced to wear them, camping in the heat. It really struck me, why do people knuckle under to something they hate so much? If all women just banned together and said, no more, we could end this ridiculous forced torture. Nobody really likes them, or people would be copying the style as something good. But no one envies Mormon ugly underwear. So, why do we knuckle under to ancient old men?

Something that dawned on me the other day is how the church really likes to oppress women.
In the United States, the government has recently cracked down on women rights. Roe v Wade was overturned. States went crazy and exacted archaic laws to take away women rights.
The church then piled on and cracks down on women and garments. It feels like a free-for-all to oppress women.

I know the garment situation is not a women problem, but garments infamously have negative health consequences for women, yet the church insists women wear them.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 03, 2024 6:28 pm

How much do you want to bet that if the church removed coffee from the WoW, Mormons would instantly become massive consumers of coffee and act like they are fulfilling prophecy by doing so?

MAKE COFFEE NOT HATEFUL DOCTRINE!

Ironically (or maybe 100% expectedly) leaders placing focus on stricter adherence to wearing garment has resulted in many, "Thanks but no thanks, and here's why." blog posts. Had the church said nothing, those blog posts and articles likely wouldn't have been written. Or at the very least, if they were written they wouldn't all be written at once and gone unnoticed.

The toothpaste feels like it's already out of the tube with respect to garments.

I've said it before, but I think the path forward for leaders is to relax the rules to maintain an illusion of control among the more orthodox members.

Orthodox members are going to notice other members disregard the garment rules. They may wonder why they have to make the sacrifice if other members aren't making it, stop wearing the garment themselves, and start down the road of casual compliance with the brethren.

But if the leaders relaxed the rules, the orthodox members could tell themselves, "Oh, Brother de Tal isn't wearing the garment because the leaders recently relaxed the rules but I'm going to keep wearing them for all the extras." The orthodox member doesn't see a growing group of nonconformists, they only see a growing group of members that are still operating within the bounds that the brethren have set for them. Thus they aren't tempted to head down other paths of nonconformity.

Just a theory.

I think the online protest to the crackdown are interesting. Some really good arguments against wearing them and lots of feelings about being forced. Some arguments I have seen, not in any specific order and not rated by how common: 1. So, the doctrine about what garments symbolize has been changed? Seems like the GA are making it up as they go. And if it’s all made up, then I don’t have to comply. 2. Most women hate garments. Jesus would not ask something hateful. 3. I heard that symbolism before, and I really like the symbolism, but then found garment wearing so inconvenient that I decided against it anyway. 4. This has been my realistic experience of garments. It does NOT bring Jesus to mind. 5. And one I really like. The water when we get baptized is symbolic, but we don’t have to stay soaking wet for life. 6 although we are supposed to not think of it as underwear but as something sacred, it is STILL underwear. And as underwear, it is particularly bad underwear. 7. There REALLY needs to be exemptions for health. Garments cause several different kinds of fungal infections, yeast infections, UTIs and other problems. Men may get jock itch, but that is no where near as serious as UTIs that can take out your kidneys (my mother had this issues) 8. issues for all the body issues women have that men don’t from periods, to pregnancy, to nursing, to menopause. They are just horribly messy for an already messy problem. 9. Mental health, of several varieties from body dysmorphia to healing from sexual abuse, garments cause mental health issues (this is my issue right here. I could not wear them, but was shamed for that inability.) 10. Many….no, all women find the garment ugly, frumpy, and it kills feeling sexually attractive. Women are different than men in our sexual response and NEED to feel attractive. 11. Women have a 90% harder time finding garment friendly clothing. This was a fun study that some women did with trying to buy dresses and some other kinds of clothing. 12 Garments are used to enforce female modesty. This is most obvious when women’s leg length is longer than that for men. 13 they are one extra layer in hot humid climates, and prevent wearing cooler clothing. 14. They are willing to make exception for fabric allergy, IF you pay for the doc to do allergy tests, but charge horribly high prices if you just know you are allergic or just prefer that fabric. 15 they will silk screen on the marks for military but won’t do it onto, oh, say scrubs for nurses, let alone normal human clothing. 16. they won’t let you make your own or alter and sometimes a slight alteration would make them fit. But no, we can't be trusted to, say change a waist that comes up and over the boobs. Guys, my waist is not shoulder level. 17. Speaking of fit, the fit is terrible for women