Garments, Women, and the Autonomy Contagion

Loved this post! And I especially think you’ve hit an important insight about taking control of underwear choices and empowerment.

I echo your words that the most important thing going on in all of this garment “stuff”, and SEC stuff, and covenant path stuff, and the un-christian talks in General Conference is that the general leaderships teachings about the very nature of Jesus Christ and His Father is wrong, and therefore harmful. I repeat, it is harmful, because it is wrong. Most of us could go on for pages, but that simplifies the discussion and the issues pretty succinctly. Thank you for the statement.

Elisa, this was such a detailed and helpful history of the last few years. Thank you. Also, this:

“Even worse (for leadership), because it’s so obvious and easy to tell when other people are wearing garments, there is a contagion effect where women seeing other women embrace flexibility around garment-wearing (or rejecting wearing altogether) seems to give them courage or permission to do the same.”

This is why what they’re doing is, from a tactical standpoint, so stupid. (It’s stupid in plenty of other ways you and others have already pointed out.) In pointing the institution’s big bright light on the fact that people are making their own choices about garments, more people, not fewer, are going to realize they too probably can and should make their own choices. “Seek to restore it as soon as possible”–Surrrre, I’m “seeking” as hard as I can, but it’s not “possible” for me until I am good and ready. Which in fact may not be all that often, since being a woman turns out to be, quite a lot of a time, an activity “that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment.”

This train has long since left the station, Brethren. Thanks for your utter lack of care and concern for me and my sisters. See you in church.

Great analysis, Elisa, as usual.

If current Church leaders are genuinely concerned with members being too lax with garment wearing and/or running for the exits, then why do they think the answer to this problem is to exert more control and tighten their grip on members? I think there is just too much hubris at the top to see this messaging landing in a negative way, which it definitely will. People don’t want to have their private lives micromanaged, and I don’t know any sane LDS person who will respond well to being micromanaged even harder. The most orthodox believers, even, will have one more reason to feel anxious, like they are not doing enough.

Then there is the problem of “garment checking”, or the time-honored pastime of LDS members passive-aggressively judging each other by their garment wearing (or lack thereof). Let’s be honest, we’ve all done it to some degree or another, probably a natural extension of Mormon guilt from our own garment-wearing choices and private discomfort. And every ward, it seems, has busybodies who act as self-appointed garment police who are only too eager to spread the word about Sister So-and-so who was spotted at grocery store dressed as if she just came from yoga class, clearly not wearing garments (not an implausible scenario, as this judgment is almost always directed at women, by other women). My boomer mom is an expert-level garment checker (to be fair, she graduated from college well before Title IX and has outdated cultural ideas of what kinds of physical activities are considered appropriate for women). But up until now, garment checking has always been done in hushed tones, often with winks and nudges and non-verbal gestures. But with DHO’s most recent GC talk, he essentially gave permission for members to engage in this judgement openly. Many (not all) bishops will feel obligated and duty-bound to intensify their garment enforcement. 

I remember when I was growing up (pre-internet, but only just), occasionally hearing anecdotal 3rd-hand accounts of people who had life-saving physical protective experiences with garment wearing, like stopping shrapnel in wartime, or limiting the spread of a chemical burn, or some such. In hindsight, I think they were repeating some Paul Dunn bullflop, but in any case, at a certain point I stopped hearing such stories being passed around at all (this might have coincided with Paul Dunn getting busted, which fits the timeline). I thought we as a Church were moving away from promoting physical protective properties of garments, shifting instead to spiritual/metaphorical “protection” (whatever that means), but it seems like Nelson, Oaks et. al. want to bring back the literalism in a big way. Members who have since shifted away from literal interpretations (like me) will be unwilling to revert back to literalism. It just doesn’t work that way.  

Does anyone know why garments can’t be redesigned or reformatted? Do they have to meet a specific length or style criteria? Couldn’t the Church make garments that women could wear underneath leggings?

Why can’t the materials be adapted to modern sensibilities and people given the choice to wear fabric types that fit their lifestyle or daily activities? Why can’t a task force of LDS women who are involved in fashion and clothing creation be assembled to come out with new designs? Are we living in a 1980s communist country where women had to wear the same style of bra and underwear?

If garments are so crucial to our faith—which apparently they are—why doesn’t the Church do everything in their power to give people choices of materials, styles, cuts, etc.? The Church preaches agency yet rarely gives members the opportunity to use it within the confines of our institutional practices.

I can think of countless other issues that we could emphasize that would have a far more profound impact upon turning hearts to Christ than 24/7 garment wearing. Instead of focusing on loving others, the Church wants to maintain its gatekeeping role as it sets up another roadblock to indicate “worthiness”.

I’m of the mindset that believers should follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit and focus on loving others, seeking forgiveness and accepting the grace and guidance of Jesus. Sometimes I wonder if Uchtdorf and Oaks represent the same church. Their relationships with Christ seem vastly incongruent.

Final thought. It was noteworthy to hear Oaks state that there are no inherent powers in or protection provided by garments. They are merely symbols. I’m sure if you searched back a few decades that there are numerous claims made by Church authorities and probably Oaks himself, that contradict his statement.

”The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. When you put on your garment, you put on a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ.”

This statement is news to me. Here is the definition of the word “veil” from the church’s own website: “A word used in the scriptures to mean (1) a divider separating areas of the tabernacle or temple, (2) a symbol for a separation between God and man, (3) a thin cloth worn by people to cover their face or head, or (4) a God-given forgetfulness that blocks people’s memories of the premortal existence.”

So Jesus is a divider, he separates God and human, and/or blocks people’s memories of the pre mortal existence? What? Since when?

I was always taught the garment was a sacred symbol of temple covenants. Temple covenants are not Jesus. Also, the church is not Jesus.

I can’t remember who gave the talk last year about replacing the word “church” with the word “Jesus,” but it seems to me that church leaders are having an increasingly difficult time figuring out what “Jesus” even means. They just throw the name around to legitimize themselves or whatever they’re saying, or to advertise that they really are Christian, but their usage often has nothing to do with what Jesus actually taught.

surely it is the marks that are important, not the garments. A tattoo gun in the washing room could take care of that.

problem solved?

@Jack:

“24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you;”

There’s a lot of difference between what God has commanded and what a church leader (organization leader) says. Even though this leader has grandiose ideas of his powers, he is not God.

Church/religious leaders have proven many, many, MANY times that they do not speak for God.

Of course it is mostly about women’s skin exposure. I won’t even dignify that concept with the word “modesty” because the church has warped that concept of modesty to make costly apparel on men acceptable, while female sexuality is unacceptable and shamed. Just look at top leaders in conference sitting in their big red throne like chairs in their expensive tailored suits and ask yourself if Jesus would approve of their modesty? Listen to Bednar insist people stand for him and ask yourself if his immodesty isn’t worse than some woman in yoga pants. But let’s focus on women exposing skin or wearing tight clothing and forget other forms of immodesty.

Compare the length of my 6’3” tall husband’s garment bottoms to my 5’5” tall garment bottoms. Mine go up at the “waist” to under my boobs, still droop in the crotch, and are below my knees and too tight because if I got a smaller waist size, they are even longer.  I am short through the waist even for how tall I am, so garment fit is horrid. And I purchased the “petite” while he purchases “long.” Still, my bottoms are much longer than his, so he can wear knee length shorts, while I have to get below the knee capri length. I mean, I hold his up to mine and mine are *twice* as long as his are. That is assine. Why are women’s cut so much longer than men’s when men are taller? Why? Because the brethren are scared shitless that women might wear something more sexually attractive than gunny sacks.

And, historically, why were the wrist length garments changed? Because Brigham Young’s daughters started refusing to go through the temple because they wanted to wear the modern styles with women’s shorter sleeves. Let me replete, garments were changed so that women could wear modern stylish clothing. No deep doctrinal reason, just that the women put style over garments. So, lesson from history, ladies, rebel and stop wearing garments, just like BY’s daughters did, until the brethren change them to something acceptable with modern styles, acceptable for periods, acceptable for nursing, acceptable for hot climates, and turn control over women’s bodies back to the women who own those bodies and live in them. Unless the men live in a female body, they have no right to be dictating our underwear. Well, even then, individual bodies are different and only the individual owner of that body should be in control. Underwear is not like wearing a cross around your neck, or a special hat, or any other religions symbolic garb. Underwear is personal and decisions about underwear should be personal.

Let the brethren start setting an example of modesty and get off the throne like red chairs, start wearing clothing from KMart, stop insisting on the kind of respect shown to the king of England, and start acting like normal humans instead of gods, and then maybe they have half a leg to stand on about female modesty.

Elsa thanks for this helpful overview of the issue from the female perspective.
I didn’t see this aspect mentioned and just wonder if others have thoughts.

The new statement centers on “the veil”. My first thought as a PIMO woman was “Only women wear a veil in the temple. They’re trying to convince women in particular of their nearness to the sacred and ‘pedestal-ize’ them by choosing a temple piece worn only by them. To borrow from Robert Lifton and Steven Hassan, they are creating loaded language to exert thought control and make the group feel special.

First paragraph of the garment letter was read over the pulpit today in my ward. New ways to be granted or denied mercy have entered the dialogue.

Angela C:

“The symbolism of the garment was always tied to the coats of skins made for Adam & Even to cover their nakedness. They have nothing to do with the veil or even with Jesus.”

The nakedness spoken of is not merely temporal. It is our souls made bare and vulnerable to potentially hostile spiritual influences–plus the open revelation of our weaknesses and transgressions. The atonement covers and protects us as we are transformed–typically through an incremental process–into sacred vessels of the Lord. We are thus clothed in Christ, so to speak. And that covering not only serves as a shield but also as a veil, masking the sacred within as well as opening to the sacred beyond–as per Moses’ tabernacle.

Each one of us who wears the garment might be viewed as a little YHWY, emulating the Great YHWY as we ascend into higher degrees of sacred space. And in so doing our bodies may be viewed as temples. And so, by wearing the garment we signify that we have become–or are in the process of becoming–a place fit for the presence of the Lord–a holy tabernacle that is, of necessity, veiled from the world.

Poor Wayfaring Stranger, I don’t know why female modesty is such a huge issue, because it didn’t use to be. For example, if you go in a certain building on BYU campus (I haven been on BYU campus in over 50 years, and was never a student, so I just don’t remember which building) there are pictures of HomeComing Queens from past years. Back in the 1930s through the 40s and into the 50s, the women are in spaghetti strap gowns, with low cut necklines and cleavage. Very normal for that era. They could be Hollywood stars. But by the 1960s the Homecoming Queens are in garment friendly gowns, although they would still have been single unendowed women. Why the huge increase in skin coverage? They look almost frumpy compared to the earlier women’s gowns. And the change was quite abrupt, much too sudden to be the gradual style change, of necklines going up and down. There was obviously some policy change that dictated that the women had to wear garment compatible gowns even before they were endowed. 

And I remember being in YWs during the late 60s and how skirt length was measured, and anything sleeveless was immodest. A YW would be sent home for being in anything that the adult men judged to be immodest, and just having a D cup size could get you sent home as “immodest” no matter how you tried to cover up. And of course in the late 60s you could not buy a dress long enough, so I don’t know how those who could not sew their own managed to find anything at all that was acceptable.

My mother told me once that when she was a teen, the attitude was, “Don’t worry about ‘after you are married.’ Wear what you want now and have fun.” Of course, she was a teen during the war and fabric was hard to come by, so skirts were short by necessity. Then as the war ended, there was a relief of we no longer have to skimp on fabric, so skirts can be full and longer, so the style changed from 1940s short pencil skirts to the 50s full midcalf circle skirts. But it was driven by fabric availability, not “modesty”. It was what women wanted rather than what men were pushing as “modesty.”

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for making the rules more important than the real commandment, and enforcing the rules with rigor, pointing the finger (and worse) at violators. Jesus taught that the interior was far more important than the exterior. My wife was texting during sacrament meeting today (fast and testimony), not because she was irreverent, but because her father in another state had fallen and was being taken to the hospital. People who saw her may have condemned her in their hearts, and they may gossip about her afterwards, but it really isn’t their business. Aren’t the condemners and the gossipers more sinful anyway?

I suppose that two of the marks are always in the right place, over my chest, but naval mark is rarely (if ever) directly over my navel–sometimes a little high, sometimes a little low, sometimes even to the left or right. My knee mark is never directly over the knee; it is always above the knee. Am I a sinner for not ensuring that the mark is always in one particular spot? We should invite (not command, not coerce, not shame) members to live better. I should give my neighbor the dignity of respecting his decision to remove his garments when that individual feels it is appropriate to do so, as I would hope that he would afford me the same dignity in this or in another area, even when we make different decisions. No one should be policing his neighbor. We should pray, but we don’t police neighbors on how often then pray, for how long, or on what subjects. We should study the scriptures, but we should not police how people study the scriptures.

We should not be modern-day Pharisees, paying tithes of mint and anise and cummin (exceptionally little things, and doing this with overstrained scrupulosity), and omitting the weightier matters of the law, namely judgment, mercy, and faith. By judgment, of course, Jesus meant fairness for the disadvantaged (widows, orphans, poor, dispossessed), not condemnation and punishment of the guilty.

Another active, garment wearing male. Just within the last 24 hrs, I overheard two different active women I’m close to (including one current bishop’s spouse) express to each other how much they despise wearing garments. The struggle is real.

Here’s the thing that baffles me: that in 2023/2024, the modern church leadership considers it wise to “double down” on weird, more extreme, boundary maintenance-ish, micromanage-y positions — like this very repeal of “let the spirit guide your garment habits”… or the encouragement to not only keep the traditional word of wisdom, but hey, let’s avoid even patronizing coffee shops altogether (recent church magazine article). Seriously, why.

Because as a current early morning seminary teacher, I will tell you that this stuff is just anathema to the youth. (My co-teacher and I employ an anonymous “question box” for gospel questions and it tends to be filled with questions about this kind of stuff they perceive as weird — as well as nearly 30% of the questions inquiring why women can’t hold the priesthood.)

Why we apparently want to create additional (meaningless? arbitrary?) hurdles for gospel commitment and membership retention is beyond me. Trust me, it turns out it’s already difficult to live Jesus’s faith – you know, with the ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love neighbor as self’ and ‘go ye therefore and teach all nations’ components. The youth are already well familiar with avoiding drinking and trying to keep the sabbath holy…things that often starkly separate them from their modern peers. We are a peculiar people and that’s part of the deal. My kids have grown up outside the Mormon corridor, playing on select soccer teams while also declining to play Sunday games, and negotiating that with their coaches. Again, the on-the-ground struggle is (very) real.

So.. what good the church hopes to accomplish by these sorts of moves is mysterious to me. Look at it this way: if this very conversation – less than 24 hours after the change – is any indication, the “determining” of (for instance) whether the initiative is female-modesty-driven is almost beside the point; that endowed members immediately speculate and debate and chafe about that is (it would seem) the very downside the church would be wise to avoid rather than embrace. Again: what are we trying to accomplish here? Is the perceived imperative to get endowed members out of their post-workout gym clothes and into their garments more quickly really worth the very real cost of making the entire practice seem even more infantilizing and less flexible than it already was? Seems like really terrible math to me.

For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t dismiss “they just don’t know” as the primary explanation. Echo chamberism reigns (in the world, not just the church). Convinced they must “know” because it was in The NY Times? Trust me, they aren’t reading the NY Times. Or that they must “know” because that one brave sister ten years ago met with the one church official who was turned off by ‘gore’? Trust me, standard organizational dynamics/dysfunction/heirarchy are more than enough to keep that “message” from penetrating the upper levels. Combine that with our leader-worship culture and you have a perfect storm of conditions likely to suppress any inclination to imaginatively consider alternative perspectives.

Also: the commenter with the hijab analogy needn’t apologize. It’s merely a difference of degree, not kind.

I think that, according to the leaders, anyone not wearing garments signifies a ‘belief and obedience problem,’ which, of course, is more threatening if the non-wearer is a woman, because these (male) leaders live, love, and hold as sacred the patriarchal order, which demands women’s compliance to continue. In a way, I think it not wearing the garment is indeed, a ‘belief and obedience problem,’ but not necessarily in regards to any covenants or in deity; rather, in the (patriarchal) leadership. To the leaders, however, ‘belief and obedience’ to the patriarchy (themselves) is the same as belief and obedience to God, hence the monitoring. Especially Nelson and Oaks: two of the most smug leaders the Church has seen in recent memory (though, of course, the Church has had many, a natural result, of course, of said patriarchy).

Elisa, the OP is spot on target. Even supernal, as it were. So much that I’m commenting just to let you know how much it resonated. Others’ comments indicate their similar feelings about the post, and I appreciate the many individual responses that show the range of thought that exists in a given congregation of humanity. It’s a beautiful thing, yet those 15 leaders and their handlers seem unable to see that, and let the spirit guide.

My only addendum is to point out that in addition to the difficulties of the 24/7 lifelong garment mandate affecting the physical health of many endowed members, there is a mental health affect as well. So many of the comments upthread refer to the different ways this plays out that I don’t need to cite examples, but I think it’s important that it be specifically stated.

When I was observant, I improvised so many workarounds to make wearing them as directed happen, but the costs accrued to me, and my mental and emotional health suffered so much that it was the reason I quit.

I’d also like to point out that when the old guys say yoga pants, they mean leggings.

Another active (PIMO) man here.

Here’s my perspective on men’s garments, speaking as a man. I agree with @mountainclimber479 that men are not exempt from the problems finding “garment-friendly” clothing. It’s not as bad for us as it is for women, but shorts are usually half an inch to an inch too short to cover the garment bottoms. I used to wear shorts a lot as a kid and as a teenager, but I haven’t worn them as an adult because I can’t find any that cover the garments, and my TBM mother always comments when the garments peek out. Now, I don’t miss wearing shorts that much. Long pants are more my style. But still, shorts are a large class of clothing that’s basically off-limits to me because of garments. I don’t find garments much of a problem for most things, though they sure do get hot and sweaty at times. However, they’re far too hot and itchy to sleep in most of the time. I like the 2019 questions, because “throughout my life” can easily mean “every day, just during the day.” If garments are symbolic of the coat of skins given to Adam and Eve when they left the Garden of Eden for the lone and dreary world, then maybe we don’t need them at night in the Garden of Eden, hmm?

One more thing: I’ve seen several people online, including @Geoff-Aus repeatedly, suggest tattooing the garment marks on. Absolutely not! If you think exclusive underwear is insanely invasive, restrictive, and culty, how much more invasive and culty would a literal mark in your flesh be? You can just stop wearing your garments one day. A tattoo is very expensive to remove. Nobody knows you ever wore garments if you stop wearing them. Everybody knows you were once Mormon if you’re at the pool and you have a cultic symbol tattooed on your knee, navel, or breast. If the old initiatory was invasive and creepy, how much more invasive and creepy would it be to take off your shirt and have some creepy old man tattoo a cultic symbol on your naked breast? Christ came to put an end to such things. The only symbol that matters to Christ is what is in your heart.

I hope to God that you’re being satirical when you suggest that, but I think the suggestion is risky enough and horrifying enough that even if it’s just satire without an /s tag, I need to respond. For the love of God, let’s not give Salt Lake any more bad ideas than they already have!

@Elisa, suggesting that top leaders lack awareness isn’t the same thing as giving them “credit”. For instance, we might agree completely that they “should” know. That they should pay attention. That they should read the NY Times. That they should exercise some imagination. That they should make effort to seek out voices that aren’t the typical sycophantic ones they’re accustomed to hearing in the COB. Yep. Agreed.

But I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that (descriptively speaking) perhaps none of these (reasonable) things are actually happening, as incredible as it seems. This is not an excuse, it’s just an observation. (And the observation, if true, might lead us to conclude that ongoing issues like this are perhaps more a problem of negligence rather than malice. And of course either/both are problematic… but of course very different diagnoses.)

I know you disagree, since you’ve stated your position adamantly… but stay with me for a minute. For example, in the musket fire speech you reference, after my initial shock/offense/disappointment in it, I was (personally) left with the feeling that Elder Holland was getting his bell rung by prominent LDS folks or donors or prominent people who are (erroneously) alarmed at BYU becoming too “woke”. And the speech was a response to that very real input, a dynamic he actually alludes to in the talk. But i got the simultaneous feeling that the parade of other potential voices – – ones who don’t feel threatened by movement toward inclusion at BYU or the rainbow-painted Y or anything else – – simply aren’t/weren’t getting through. And hence the fire and brimstone in Holland’s talk may simply reflect a “skewed” underlying understanding of what’s happening on Provo’s campus. If this is in fact the case, we also have an egregious problem… it’s just not exactly the one you are describing.

Again, none of this serves as an excuse; in fact, it’s a stark indicator of the massive “governance” problem the institutional church has, in that any sort of non-fawning feedback is simply nonexistent. Complaints or questions get routed back to local leaders and often result in discipline or tacit marginalization of the question asker, etc etc ad nauseum. This has been discussed elsewhere at length. But a less-discussed effect of this structure is that the brethren themselves are essentially insulated from actually seeing what life is really like among typical members of the church. Lay members can’t actually get “heard”… but leaders are harmed also, since they essentially aren’t working based on an awareness of actual reality.

BlueRidge,

To add to your observations about the church’s inertia as a large bureaucracy, I think the most important reason is the assumption that the past is inspired/revealed, and the only thing that should change that is another Revelation. And of course the experiences and complaints of the rank and file do not equal revelation, in fact I could imagine that the more complaining there is, the more resistance there might be to seek a changing revelation because it would mean reversing the direction that inspiration is supposed to flow! I think this idea explains a lot about the remarkable resistance to change that is a hallmark of the LDS church.

And I agree with your argument about modesty. But I would also suggest that a lot of it is sort of subconscious, sort of an “ick” factor that an older leader experiences when he sees a lot of leggings and reacts viscerally but on the conscious level justifies it by talking about covenants. I think it is in a similar category to beards, double earrings, etc.

I disagree with the current emphasis on policing garment wearing, but I have to say that I do think that the garment has always pointed to Christ (a broken clock …) In fact I agree with the complaints, because of the symbolism of the garment.

The garment explicitly evoques the garment given to Adam, and Eve on their expulsion from the garden. In the context of that story, it is a gift from God that replaces their own attempt to clothe themselves. This provides a contrast between Lucifer, and God. When they are informed of their nakedness, Lucifer leaves them to clothe themselves with the inadequate materials they had on hand, fig leaves. In contrast, God provides them with comfortable, durable clothing, requiring no work on their part. This clothing is made from the skin of an animal from the garden. The most immediate death precipitated by the fall is not that of Adam, or Eve, but of an animal from the garden that dies to protect them from the fallen world that they will enter. This provides an easy type of Christ. The animal was without sin from the fall. It suffered the threatened consequence, in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, that man escapes. It was freely sacrificed by God to protect man from their own actions. 

Many of the critiques of the current garment could be resolved if it more closely recreated that original type. It should be objectively better than what we can produce, but that is impossible because we are creating it, so it must at least be equal to the best we can produce. If it is uncomfortable, or deteriorates, that is a failure on the part of the garment we have constructed, not on the wearer. Garments should be better, and they could be.

I don’t believe for a second that current discourse and practice of the garment has anything to do with Adam and Eve. On the contrary, it has everything to do with Joseph’s co-opting Masonic rights and rituals (worn only at certain times in certain places), which then got connected via the temple narrative to the Adam and Eve story, and was further corrupted by creepy, destructive views of ‘modesty’ and control – our own contemporary Shibboleth. The result is the ridiculous situation we now find ourselves in. Doesn’t mean people don’t benefit from symbols and reminders, etc., but the sooner we can get at the heart of the matter, symbols, the sooner we can have a real discussion. But, sadly, the temple narrative (not ever meant to be literal) has taken over and had become a god unto itself. Speaking in terms of metaphors, we have corrupted the process: the vehicle became the tenor.

One of the ironies is that wearing garments all the time lessens the impact of them reminding us about our covenants.

They become habit. They just turn into underwear. Odd underwear, but after a few decades, if you don’t have major issues with fit or health, they rarely *mean* anything anymore.

On the outside, if you weren’t paying attention to the comments I make in the second hour, you’d likely think I’m completely orthodox. I’m in the RS Presidency in my ward, I love the people I attend church with, I pay my tithing, I attend the temple, I wear my garments.

But other than the recent discussions that are happening, I can’t remember the last time that wearing garments reminded me of anything spiritual.

Basically, if their purpose is to remind us of the Savior, they’re not working.

The point about garments not being problematic for men wearing suits daily is an underappreciated one. For those that do so, they cannot conceive of garments causing a problem for others. Moreover, given how long some of them have worn garments–going back to the more robust one-piecers of their “youth”–it is second nature.

In addition, the reality of one-way communication in the Church is absolutely true. Gone are the days when anyone above a stake president has more than passing contact with the peasants…err, regular members…unless you happen to have a hook. Take the example of BYU, which from an institutional perspective is modeled on the Church hierarchy (and the deans, VPs, etc. see themselves as junior general authorities). Nothing critical or questioning makes it up the line–I have seen this countless times with university committees and with interactions with the bureaucracy; only proclamations from above make it to masses of faculty…and we are expected to comply without questioning.

If the Church can make allowances for military service with non-white garments, one would think that making allowances for more common things (e.g. breastfeeding, menstruation, health issues) would be a no-brainer. But, alas, not so much. Yet in these situations, I always go back to my fundamental approach to interviews: give the information/answer that is correct for you and let God sort it out–not lying, of course, but if you believe you are wearing garments as instructed given your own personal circumstances, then the answer is “yes”…full stop. No need to get nuanced or parse definitions in the realm of leadership roulette.

“The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. When you put on your garment, you put on a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ.”

So garments are a symbol of a symbol?

lws, if you read D Michael Quinn’s book “The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power” and Benjamin Park’s books “Kingdom of Nauvoo” and “American Zion” you’ll quickly discover that Joseph Smith said one thing about teaching correct principles and letting the people govern themselves but actually behaved as an authoritarian leader who had tight control over his people. Anyone who crossed him, even the Quorum of the Anointed and Council of 50, who were the super duper, extra special members and BFFs of JS discovered to their chagrin and cost that they were just as expendable and just as likely to be exed as the great “unenlightened” rest of the church. 

What most church members don’t know (because it’s not taught, of course) is that the early church’s growth was due to the fact that it DIDN’T have a hierarchy of leaders. In true New Testament fashion the church was an equal group of members who often took turns leading and teaching the group. When JS began building his Priesthood hierarchy that would also run temporal affairs in the Mormon community there were a large number of otherwise very faithful members who saw the writing on the wall and quickly left. They could clearly see where having a handful of men running the entire show without having to be accountable to the people was going. And they were right!

Because the Q 15 aren’t answerable to the members in any way they can do as they themselves wish with impunity. Back in January the Atlantic ran an article from July/August 2017 titled “Power Causes Brain Damage” that states that the latest brain research has proven that people who are in positions of power and authority begin to experience physical damage in the parts of the brain that deals with empathy, compassion and the desire to understand people and situations as well as the area that deals with decision making. Now, considering how long men like RMN and DHO have been in power in various situations in and out of the Q15 it’s easy to imagine the damage that may have been done to their brains. Part of the brain damage also manifests itself as intransigence even when a demonstrably better way has been proven effective in dealing with a problem. 

Rather than embrace positive and necessary change for the good of the church members the leaders in power resist it as hard as they can. Their thinking appears to be that change is only GOOD when THEY come up with a new idea. If the need or desire for change comes from the outside it is usually ignored and/or vigorously resisted UNLESS someone or something on the outside presents such a serious threat that the leaders may have to be compelled to change in order to keep their leadership and/or the organization they lead could find itself shut down or taken over (see what happened to precipitate the end of polygamy and the ban on Blacks receiving the Priesthood) if they refuse to change. The leaders of the church have shown themselves unwilling to change anything for the better that doesn’t actually threaten their status and leadership. power has literally “gone to their heads”. Term limits need to be applied for all church leaders regardless of the level of their calling. However, I’m realistic enough to realize that this won’t happen because of TBMs being fine with the status quo. Only unless a significant number of members rise up en mass to demand change (or to leave the church) or the government or some other very powerful entity that the leaders respect demands major change immediately or else serious consequences will follow.

I think there is a danger in making the garments symbolic of Jesus. Some of us hate the garment enough that the hatred will be transferred to Jesus. I am one of those and the garment just being symbolic of God clothing A & E, and something God wanted me to wear made me hate God. Well, if God hated me so much he would force me into something that to me was symbolic of sexual abuse and me not owning my own body, they I was going to hate him back. Now, I am still recovering from that hate. My relationship with Jesus is much better than the Father because that symbolism was kept away from Jesus. When I went through the temple the first time, my reaction was where is Jesus in all this crap? Because there certainly was no Jesus in the temple. It was cult crap and about keeping secrets and swearing oaths and your life is forfeit if you reveal this secret. Certainly NOT Jesus. But, if they try to make Garments symbolic of Jesus, it is just going to transfer that hatred to Jesus. Please, can’t we keep Jesus separate from coercion, force, signs and tokens and throat slitting symbology. Why do they have to turn Jesus into a monster?

I guess because they don’t have a clue who Jesus is. If they can connect the throat slitting (and they all went through before that was obfuscated) of the endowment with Jesus of Nazareth they don’t know Jesus.

“By the way, not sure if I missed something, but how exactly would Elder Hamilton or anyone know that a woman is not wearing garments under their yoga pants? ” – toddsmithson

I am guessing that when a women shifts her knee around, the lines of the garment may be visible. Another possibility is if the women’s shirt rides up, there may be an inch of the waistband present above the pant line.

Not all yoga pants are created equal though. Some of them function like regular pants or jeans, and others function more like leggings. And to be honest, the garment line issues are more about the pants being pants (bellbottoms excluded) and how the garments are designed then specifically yoga pants.

Georgis & ji,

I’m of the opinion that local presiding officers are endowed with the keys and authority to lead their congregations by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Indeed, they are prophets–within the framework of the Kingdom–to their congregations. And so we should be willing to receive the counsel of a stake president–whether it comes to us as an immediate response from him personally or as counsel that flows through him from a higher authority to which he has appealed.

This morning I saw a motorcycle cop pull over someone and thought of this post . It reminded me of the times I have been speeding and have been caught. I knew I was speeding, I had no defense, I was a little embarrassed that I was caught and I really did watch my speed for at least a little while after the ticket.

I think our GAs see themselves as a benevolent cop reminding non garment wearing members of what they already know. And they expect the same somewhat embarrassed acknowledgment and determination to change that most speeders demonstrate.

But I have a younger family member, married in the temple, who chooses not to wear garments much of the time. They aren’t trying to hide anything, their choice of clothing even at family gatherings shows that, nor do they appear to be self conscious about it. I think senior church leaders would be surprised to find out that this member doesn’t feel like an abashed speeder when they dress without garments. As far as I can tell they feel more like someone setting a table and putting the napkin to the right of the plate. When an older person reminds them that the napkin goes to the left of the plate they don’t feel shame or remorse, if anything they just feel annoyed that someone is making a big deal about something so trivial.

I had a thought that kind of ties into the discussion here. When Covid hit, there were many women who did not have access to the sacrament. Now we were always told how you should not go without taking the sacrament, how important the symbols were, well we all know how it was made out to be so necessary. Then Covid hit and people were told that church meeting were out for a while, but no problem, priesthood holders could just bless the sacrament at home. Problem solved. Except for women who didn’t have a priesthood holder in the home. Oh well. They’ll do fine without it.

The church just totally ignored how they had always taught how important it was. Because single women or women married to non priesthood holders really don’t count. Maybe sacrament isn’t all that important really. Not if it isn’t worth *some* compromise of blessing it over the phone, or through the door, or something that protected the older people most vulnerable to Covid. But no. The high and mighty church couldn’t bother to figure out something that would work. 

Conclusion, either the sacrament is not all that important, or prophets are so sexist they can’t be prophets of God, or women are not important to God. Pick one. The least worse for a believing member is that the sacrament is not important.

So, if the sacrament is not important as a symbol, what about other symbols, like garments. Maybe they are not important either.

And, we have a huge number of women especially conclude that symbols are not important.

The church brought this on themselves.

Elisa:

“Yes, always love when Bishops use their keys and authority to sexually abuse folks or refuse to report abuse done by others. Excellent prophets and revelators.”

Out of the round number of twenty-five thousand current bishops in the church how many have sexually abused someone?

Negligence,

you commented “But I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that (descriptively speaking) perhaps none of these (reasonable) things are actually happening, as incredible as it seems. “

I have an friend who was on a special committee headed by 2 apostles whose job was to monitor press and social media for any negative issues about the church, report them to the apostles and come up with a spin plan to counteract the bad press.

So i agree with Elisa, they know.

Dad - Wow. Incredible. so much for my benevolent negligence theory…

What I can say for sure is that if a person’s post is in general agreement with the article you mostly get thumbs up. The converse is true if you disagree. That suggests that raters approve of what they agree with and disapprove of what they do not. Not a firm foundation for a real conversation. If we want to bridge divides we may need to be more willing recognize the merits of comments that don’t agree with our own sentiments.