My internet is exploding with news articles and social media posts jubilating that the LDS Church is testing a new, “sleeveless” style of garment for men & women living in hot climates. I’m seeing, in general, two types of responses:
(1) It is great that there is some progress here. Hopefully this goes a long way towards eroding our shame-and-judgment culture (i.e., we stop trying to figure out whether women are wearing garments and judging shoulders as sinful). It’s not enough — but I’ll take it for now; when can people outside of like, Zimbabwe, buy them?
(2) This is just proof that all the rules are made up.
My response, however, is a third category that I am kind of baffled I am not seeing places. It is this:
THOSE. ARE. NOT. SLEEVELESS.
Those are basically cap sleeves with an couple of inches, max, off of existing garment styles. Honestly, it’s borderline bad journalism to call those things sleeveless. It’s just weird. I can’t think of a single thing that I own that I could wear with those garments that I could not wear with the old cap-sleeve style. And the “sleeveless” items that I do own could not be worn with this design.
Not to mention, there is literally no way those would be any cooler than the existing garment because it is not the couple of inches of fabric that makes them hot–it is the COMPLETE EXTRA LAYER OF CLOTHING.
I don’t want to poop on anybody’s party, but celebrating stuff like this just frustrates me because there are still so many people who absolutely hate the design of garments–so much so that they are thrilled with a very minor modification–but that continue to wait for a bunch of old men in SLC to make satisfactory changes. Of course, as I wrote about earlier this year, a lot of people aren’t waiting around anymore.
What does it say about our culture that women are so hungry, desperate for change, celebrating this (practically) microscopic, (nearly) immaterial of victories? It’s kind of like when we celebrated women being allowed to pray in General Conference in 2013. I mean … OK that’s good. But only because it’s been so, so, so, so bad. Or when we briefly celebrated people using the terms “Heavenly Parents” in General Conference. Which btw, they aren’t any more after Renlund told women to stop talking about Heavenly Mother (which itself tells you everything you need to know about women’s status in the Church and the likelihood that they’ll ever be listened to about garments and yeast infections).
Ladies (and gentlemen): Your are in charge of your own bodies. You always have been. You do not need to keep waiting for additional changes to garments–that may or may not ever come–to start being comfortable, healthy, and autonomous in your clothing choices. You can actually just do that right this minute.
And … use your eyes. Those tops are not sleeveless.
Questions:
- What did you think of the news? Am I too cynical? Is it something to celebrate? What reactions are you seeing in your circles? Do you think it’ll stem the tide of people opting out of garments? Do you think it will simply accelerate that trend as people may conclude that the rules are a little bit made up?
Wheat & Tares 
Thank you for saying this. I’ve been laughing non-stop since yesterday. “Open sleeves” — I can just picture the garment committee (which supposedly includes women, albeit assuredly not ones who actually make final decisions) debating ad nauseam what to call this new style. Also, the fact that the church news article announced these are specifically to BLESS (there we go again with the obsession with blessings) members in hot and humid climates. It’s just super funny.
To answer your questions. No, you are not being too cynical. We are so starved for change, of any kind, that the tiniest bit of non-news gets people excited. Also, no, this will not stem the tide of people opting out of garments. I am a 30-something mom with 3 kids and after years of struggling with self esteem, body issues, lack of spice in the bedroom, swamp crotch, UTIs, and the like, I metaphorically woke up 2 years ago and stopped wearing them completely. I attend church weekly and am an active, but nuanced member. No amount of new garment designs, conference talks, smack-downs from area authorities, or anything else is ever going to entice me back into wearing them. I respect anyone who genuinely feels the garment brings them closer to God. But that was not my experience and my quality of life in so many ways dramatically increased when I realized, as you said, that I am in charge of my own body. Regardless of what climate I live in.
@LH – swamp crotch is such a vibe. And so real.
As I mentioned in my garment post from earlier this year – I know ZERO WOMEN who resumed wearing garments after stopping. This will definitely not move the needle for them.
On the one hand, a step in the right direction. On the other hand, it feels like too little, too late. They are still pushing the whole “garment system” (don’t know what else to call it), even doubling down on it. They’re doing this while more and more LDS are just quietly ditching garments. They are voting with their feet, so to speak.
The leadership must be frustrated and confused by all this.
Thanks for the sanity check, Elisa! I had the exact same thought when I saw that photo–what exactly is the difference between what’s in that photo and what women’s garments look like right now??? Yeah, I guess, if I get out my microscope, they removed a tiny bit of fabric, but this seems like hardly a revolutionary change to me. Everyone was saying how great this inspired change was, but I wasn’t seeing it, either. I’m glad to know it wasn’t just me.
My guess is that this change will have zero impact on the current trend. Endowed members, especially younger endowed members, will continue to refuse to wear garments at a higher and higher rate. It will just continue to be one of those standard things that endowed members lie to their bishops about every other year during their temple recommend interviews.
Note to Q15: it’s time to finally decouple the symbols on ceremonial temple clothing from arbitrarily set Church modesty standards. The garment symbolism can be preserved in much more innovative ways (like, it doesn’t even have to be underwear at all). Once you’ve done that, you can then try to preach modesty from the pulpit however you want. Garments were never, ever intended to be a modesty enforcement tool, and you are abusing your power by using garments in this way. There is simply no theological basis for using garments to enforce some arbitrary modesty standard decided by conservative men in some backroom of the Church office building.
My wife and I left the church a couple years ago, but she still wears the garments because it would be too much of a hassle to find something new, lol. I don’t think she would care about the 1-2″ off the sleeves. As for me, a sweaty bigger guy that likes strength sports and hiking, ditching the awkward underwear was awesome. I finally realized that I don’t need symbolic garments to treat others and myself with respect and kindness. Nor do I need them as a religious identifier and means for guilt and control.
Do you know that there are also full-slip and half-slip versions of the garment for women? And they are made of 100% nylon? Such cool fabric – especially in a hot, humid climate – like wearing saran wrap. According to product descriptions, “The slip design more easily allows a variety of possible options to address women’s health or other needs. Light Nylon is a 100% nylon fabric that dries quickly and is lightweight.” Think of all the ladies wearing a full-slip or a half-slip temple garment with no panties underneath to address their women’s health needs! Or I suppose the ladies can choose to wear the full-slip or half-slip temple garment with panties so now they are wearing TWO pieces of underwear! That should make all the ladies a lot cooler.
I have decided never to submit myself to another ‘worthiness’ interview, so I won’t be doing any TR interviews. However if I were asked about garments I would say that I don’t discuss my underwear with anyone except my husband. It is totally inappropriate for a man to be asking a women about her underwear for ANY reason.
So, the typical undershirt or tank top for men and women curves in under the armpits – so cloth does not impede range or motion and the arm hole is not constricting. Why are the arm holes in this new design so small and why is there fabric all around the armpit?
G’s are derived from chemises, which also served as a dress shield for men and wome’s armpits (sweat/smell). I wonder if people still want that layer of protection against their clothes, whether sweating through antiperperant is a concern or deodorant/antipersperant stains on the more expensive putter clothing is an issue.
Essentially- what’s up with our armpits?
In my opinion, garments should be reserved for temple worship only. Aside from that, members could have an app on their phone or a card in their wallet containing the symbols that they could look on or have on their person to remind them of their covenants. Or, the distribution center could sell a packet full of symbols that could be ironed on to undergarments of members’ choice. Voila, the church gets completely out of the underwear business altogether. Problem solved, and you’re welcome.
The arm holes are too small to be helpful. What are they afraid of seeing? Is the top of my shoulder and an inch under my arm pit so sexy that they are afraid I will choose the wrong outfit so they can see this? I think they ought to stop feeling controlled by the sight of my aged body. They ought to stop trying to control my clothing.
As I have gotten older the tighter sleeves rub the tender skin in the arm pits. If a sleeveless item had a bigger arm hole and narrower strap (rather than sleeve top) it would make it more comfortable, and less likely to show under clothing. I agree with Cynthia with ALSSI; a spaghetti strap would be nice.
They need to let go and let women make these decisions. This top indicates they are trying to appear to make concessions while still trying to control women’s clothing. If modesty is a concern they should teach true principles and allow women to govern themselves. I assure you any mention of underwear in any talk and I get out my phone and read W & T to block out anything that is said. I am going to do what I am going to do. I will wear garments or not on a particular day as seems comfortable and good.
One thing you didn’t mention that is exciting and a big deal: they are also marketing to these African women a slip with the markings above the knee to go with that top, and a “sleeveless” shift (full length slip) with all the markings. For people that like to wear dresses this is a great step away from swamp crotch. I am excited about that. I do like dresses, particularly at church. I love all the patterns, colors and styles of dresses, and a slip would move with the skirt better and be less likely to show (and less obvious if it does show) and would definitely be cooler in the summer. And so simple to make. It would probably be cheaper and easy to get in the shelves. Probably last a long time too, and wouldn’t need to be washed as often. A really good call. Hopefully they decide to make them available here sooner rather than later.
It’s been a couple years since I wore garment tops, and at least five years since I bought them. The garments in the picture look sleeveless to me. Obviously they won’t work with spaghetti straps. But tank tops described as “bra friendly” have wide straps over the shoulders and those should work with this new garment top. I own lots of tank tops now, and this new design would probably be fine with them.
The description “open sleeve” is ridiculous. All sleeves are open. If you sewed the sleeve shut, you couldn’t put your hand through it. A closed sleeve is used only in strait jackets.
How about a fourth category: all of the above? It is a step, it is all made up, and those garments are not sleeveless (ok maybe sort of) and they are still a whole extra layer. I haven’t worn garments in years, so it won’t change my life.
But what I’m wondering is how they decide which members are “blessed” with this new option. How hot and humid does it need to be? What if it’s hot but not humid, or vice versa? What if it’s hot and humid in the summer, but cold in the winter? Do you get the garments, but you have to switch back when it gets cold? If you move from a hot, humid place to a cold, dry place, does the bishop confiscate your old garments? (They could monitor this when they transfer your records.) If you go on vacation to a hot, humid place, can you rent some of these garments (perhaps the ones the bishop confiscated from another member)? Will a black market of “sleeveless” garments develop? Someone could travel to, say, Florida, and either take orders from people beforehand, or else purchase a supply of various sizes and sell them at higher prices in, say, Idaho. Or both, actually. SO MANY QUESTIONS.
I had the same thought as Dot: black market for garments here we come. Then queue the new level of judging for people wearing these outside of ‘approved zones.’ What a train wreck this will be.
lws329 “And so simple to make” (re the full length slip)
Exactly, so why not just sell us the pattern and let us choose our own fabrics? We wouldn’t have to wait until 2025/2026. Not everyone will be happy with nylon.
I just got out my scissors and cut an inch off both arms and pits of my current carinessas. Wow! I cannot believe how much more comfortable it is without the pressure of the spandex pushing in on my shoulders and under the pits. Now they look just like the new ones. Comfort and no wait.
The church wants to be seen as progressive without making really progressive changes. It isn’t as if they said garments are optional or not required for entry to the temple. Bear in mind they just doubled down on garment wearing. So I’m with you. This is not real news. It is not any sign of serious progress or change.
To me, this smacks of heated discussion and compromise behind closed doors at the COB. Someone with some pull is clearly advocating for change, and someone else is doggedly covering the brake. That’s how you wind up with pyrrhic concessions like these that provoke more questions than they answer as Dot so effectively pointed out.
“This is just proof that all the rules are made up.”
…and the points don’t matter. It seems whenever the Church makes a small, incremental progressive overdue baby step forward, there are always detractors who are upset that the change came too late, aggrieved at the arbitrary suffering they had to endure unnecessarily for years prior to the change in question. And these grievances are legitimate; I suppose that if the Church made progressive moves that were bigger and more timely, too many devout TBMs would start to wonder about the rules being made up, so they are extremely cautious about change. That, and the organizational inertia of elderly men who long for the social norms they grew up with.
In the 21st century, I can’t imagine that any global organization (particularly one run by elderly men) can have control over it’s female members’ underwear AND stay relevant for very long.
This garment change is not an example of members following the Church leaders, but of the leaders following the members. Too little, too late, and totally arbitrary.
I went over to the ex-Mormon subreddit to check their reactions there. Overwhelmingly they are calling out the church for hypocrisy. Many of them are recounting experiences of being shamed for wearing sleeveless shirts as immodest and that they were to wear sleeved shirts in preparation for wearing garments. And now, hey no sleeves, or at least the sleeves are a bit shorter.
I’ll bet this was a deliberate design constraint. Someone up top okayed a new design as long as it didn’t allow women to modernize the rest of their wardrobe.
The specific changes to the garments are irrelevant, yes. But so long as garments generally–as a measure of commitment, as a cultural oddity that permits the faithful to feel different and special–remain a topic of conversation that is sometimes passionate and divisive, the church maintains control. If they were to make a public statement about changes to the garments and hardly anyone noticed because few wear them anymore, that would be a sign of real change and decline. What a fine day that would be. I’m just glad I’m not clad from shoulder to knee in an extra layer of stifling fabric anymore. I miss that like I long for discomforts only penicillin can clear up.
lws329, the sleeves have no markings, and there is no scriptural requirement for them. I don’t see a problem with removing the sleeves. We have been told (women and men) not to roll the sleeves under, but I cannot imagine that this is part of a covenant. Since the church now authorizes sleeveless, why not get ahead and save a little money, and remove your own sleeves. I have another issue, which I raise for a friend. With garment bottoms, things can get a little hot down below at night, and there is sometimes chafing. If my friend bought a woman’s new slip to wear at night, the waist one, he could get a little more air and a little less chafing in his nether regions. There’s nothing that says that he can’t wear hers, or she can’t wear his, is there? Asking for a friend!
The responses to these garments that I have seen have not been celebratory but outraged. Outraged because people are angry that they couldn’t wear these during their youth and now members get to do so.
Me thinks if Isaiah saw the church today, we be gettin a new poem like chapter 1. God apparently sounds pretty tired of righteousness by ritual.Aren’t garments, or at least “wearing them faithfully” just another sacrificial nothing burger to make people feel “righteous”, but is really just a wayto not have to “seek justice” and defend the “oppressed”, as Isaiah points out?
“What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?”
says the LORD.
“I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fattened cattle.
I get no pleasure from the blood
of bulls and lambs and goats.
12When you come to worship me,
who asked you to parade through my courts with all your ceremony?
13Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts;
the incense of your offerings disgusts me!
As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath
and your special days for fasting—
they are all sinful and false.
I want no more of your pious meetings.
14I hate your new moon celebrations and your annual festivals.
They are a burden to me. I cannot stand them!
15When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look.
Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen,
for your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims.
16Wash yourselves and be clean!
Get your sins out of my sight.
Give up your evil ways.
17Learn to do good.
Seek justice.
Help the oppressed.
Defend the cause of orphans.
Fight for the rights of widows.
This design looks like a compromise between what is being asked for and what those with veto power are grudgingly willing to allow, with a great deal of fear in their minds about what people will think it’s “OK” to wear. I don’t believe the garment was originally conceived as an enforcer of modesty standards, as I doubt the Nauvoo era garment was all that different from underwear everyone else was wearing. But since roughly the 1960s we (meaning both the membership and leadership of the church) have retroactively imposed meaning on them as enforcers of modesty standards, and those with decision making power can’t seem to get past that.
The strange thing about the garment as modesty boundary enforcer is that the temple ordinances say nothing about that. It’s presented as a protection, which increasingly the church is trying to label as symbolic rather than literal. If true, theoretically the garment should be able to take a lot of different forms. For this reason I find the slip design that’s also being introduced to be far more radical than the wannabe sleeveless top. In practice it likely doesn’t change much what can be worn over it, but it probably does solve some problems for some women. More importantly, it’s a complete rethink of what form factors the garment must take. That gives me hope for more creative thinking down the road, subject to approval by the gatekeepers of course.
Here’s what I keep thinking about. Mormon women look at Evangelical women and smugly think: “Thank God we aren’t as oppressed as those women. We can speak at Church, we don’t have to defer to our husbands in public conversations, and we don’t have to have a pretend marriage to our fathers before we are married, and there are token women in leadership roles.” Evangelical women look at Mormon women (if they are even aware of Mormons enough to do this) and say: “Thank God we can at least choose our own underwear and our husbands aren’t looking around for sister wives.” It’s like conservative religions are doing an A/B test for controlling women. Whether you get version A or version B, it’s really all the same.
However, I will say that there are a lot more Evangelicals than Mormons in the world, so it doesn’t look like the Mormon version is winning. Plus women are leaving all conservative faiths at unprecedented levels, so maybe they are all losing. I’ll have to wait to see Jana Riess’s sequel Nextest Mormons to find out.
Mostly in sympathy with the fake-news too-little-too-late comments. Still, I’m looking forward to ordering the new patterns (assuming I still have my TR in late 2025). They’ll make wearing garments and sheath-style dresses possible, which are ubiquitous in the professional world, and maybe even a sleeveless Oxford or two—the images make it hard to tell.
Also, is it just me, or is the male image showing more shoulder? He could definitely get away with the sleeveless Oxford.
Several have referred to the underarms being too tight, a problem that hasn’t been resolved here. This is something we always called “garmpit,” which is the easiest way to see if a woman is wearing them. But it also cuts across the underarm which is uncomfortable. Just a reminder: women’s comfort is not the goal here.
The big question is what about porn shoulders. Are we going to be seeing more of that at church (oh the horror)? Also, are men’s garments going to follow suit?
I think the whole thing is scandalous. I got aroused just looking at that mannequin modeling the new garment style. Heaven help me if I ever catch a glimpse of the relief society president’s shoulder!
I’m worried. My wife has delts that can stop traffic.
Brad D: Men are going sleeveless as well. Time to get that tattoo you’ve always wanted.
Old Man: Time to realize how many people already have tattoos.
To me, it seems that every move from The Church just emphasizes that so much of what they insist is Super Meaningful is in fact, arbitrary. Sometimes we spend so much time insisting that all policy is doctrine that it feels like we forget to have any actual doctrine. Maybe it’s always been this way and it just takes a decade or two of participating in the church as an adult before it all sinks in.
Consider that with current garment styles, thanks to elasticity and bunching the knee mark is often as close to the hip as it is to the knee. So the symbols don’t really have to be right next to the corresponding body part, do they?
To me, this supports the idea that the garment could be “worn” the same way a handkerchief is worn: as an accessory carried in a pocket. I like the idea of the garment becoming a card. Or a reversible signet ring.
(Oh geez. I was googling reversible signet rings and discovered that masons already do this. Hey, we’re already copying them anyway, right?)
I can appreciate the use of symbols as a way of remembrance, but me thinks that if Isaiah were here today, we be gettin another poem like Isaiah chapter 1. Apparently, God is pretty fed up with righteousness by ritual. There are zero points awarded for wearing the garment. God, at no point created arbitrary commands to simply test his children’s resolve to do as they’re told. I could, so called “faithfully” wear the garment every day and still be a world class jerk, so NO, I do not think God is concerned with whether I tally the appropriate hours “in the garment”.
Lindsay Hansen Park’s Opinion of the New Tank Top Garments:
I don’t have much of an opinion on the new tank top garments. I’m a guy & the modesty push was mostly on the women. So while I did not like the garments, it was never a big issue.
IMO, the garment change is just more evidence that the Church is lead by very flawed men (not God) & that the Church merely follows societal trends, albeit many years late.
But Lindsay Hansen Park is a Mormon woman & she had a compelling & eloquent opinion:
“Actually, I have more thoughts on the LDS garment change.
I woke up with a rage down in my belly about it. About the absolute futility that this change now validates—the realization of how carelessly absurd it all is. Attribute it to whatever you like, but it is emblematic of the rotten fruitlessness of these senseless, painful, and arbitrary rules.
How can something seriously dumb engender so much rage…?
Do you know- can you possibly know (unless you’ve lived it like so many of us LDS women) how many tedious minutes, hours, years of our lives were impacted by the cut of cheap, shitty fabric that we believe was a symbol of our commitment to God? Garments manufactured in factories by underpaid workers dictated not just by faith, but by a system that never considered the toll on our bodies, our time, and our well-being.
We spent how much time focused on the narrative of shoulder. Dear God, what time you must have to waste.
Why would we believe that these things mattered or came from God in the first place? Because our culture was obsessed with it. The garment design got in between mothers and daughters, between sisters and friends. It entered the marriages of every single devout couple and sent them directives and messages about how to view one another, their relationships and commitments and themselves.
And just like that, the unchanging rule of the sanctity of our skin is cut away with new garment updates. What a thing.
Such a stupid, hollow thing where many of our faithful will argue that it’s small and insignificant and continuing revelation and whatever arsenal they will continue to expend on something that is both so tedious and full of tremendous magnitude. And the rest of us will react with equal rage and energy and worship the emptiness that was offered up as life-giving doctrine.
That’s the encapsulation of the bankrupt theology my generation inherited from old men in downtown Salt Lake City. Dudes whose best crack at God was a laborious amount of effort expressed in sermons, pamphlets and endless activities and performances of the dangers of women’s shoulder. All because they clearly lacked the skills, the will and creativity to come up with theology that actually propelled us towards being better people, instead of turning our shame internally at ourselves.
So much time wasted trying to find clothes that covered my shoulders. So much twisting of my brain to make these covenants reflect in the public performance of fashion, so much signaling to others to stay in line, so much shame.
While I feel a sense of relief knowing that future generations won’t have to endure this, and I’m glad for the change, that doesn’t mean I’m at peace with how it was handled.
It was a weird and frankly, creepy rule, one that poisoned our men with reinforcements and bad ideas about the female body. It’s one that allowed women to literally measure someone’s worth by the length of their clothing.
And just like that, all the damage, weirdness and unmeasurable futile, stupid suffering- will be swept away.
Here’s what this change actually tells us: Mormonism, despite all of its grand promises is a tribute to the mediocrity of old men.
Yeah, good for future women. Truly, truly. No one should endure that- but those of us who wore out our truly terrible, collective sexual dysfunction on our backs- we’re never getting that back unless we claim it. And even then, to see how absolutely pointless this is- is the exact reason I will never stop having my rage aimed to match the tediousness of the most hollow, insignificant nonsense that we grew up thinking God cared about.
God is so big, they told us- and then they showed us how small he was. And then they trimmed him down even further, once again, on our shoulder line.”
Ooh….Georgis,
You are a rabble rouser. I agree that clothing is clothing and irrelevant as to the sex that wears it. For instance, years ago all my garment tops were dirty for some reason and my husband had extra, so I wore his. There were no bad effects I could notice. No lightning came from the sky. I wore them all day and felt I was keeping my covenants by wearing them. I used to wear my husbands jeans that were too small for him too, and the occasional t shirt. Some how I have remained a woman.
But today transgender people are counseled by the church not to change the sex of the clothing they are wearing. But yet, I am still pretty sure that clothing doesn’t actually clearly have sex or gender. It’s all in the head of the wearer. If people feel more comfortable with a certain style, I think it’s reasonable for them to wear it. Particularly if it eases gender dysphoria, or suicidal thoughts.
So Georgis, I think you ought to tell your friend he could wear a skirt with markings, if it is more comfortable. After all, Scottish men wear kilts. I have Scottish men that wear kilts to attend church in my ward on Sunday. I think it’s perfectly reasonable.
However, I wouldn’t advise your friend to tell his bishop. The bishop could have a different opinion. Just say yes, I wear them night and day, when the question comes up. It wouldn’t be a lie.
Quentin,
From what I have read in the history, originally the endowment was just for men (for the first year or so). Originally the garment was just a clean white shirt that they would write the signs on, to be worn in the temple to replace the shirt worn into the temple. The endowed person wasn’t to wear this as underwear. It was considered liturgical clothing and was to be stored safely away where it couldn’t get stained or damaged, to be worn into the temple on another occasion.
Margie,
Just to be clear; you don’t need a temple recommend to buy garments. You just need to be an endowed member. People buy them all the time even though their recommend is expired. Since we are commanded to wear them pretty much all the time to renew a recommend, even inactive members have to be able to buy them and wear them if they want to repent and keep their covenants. So don’t worry. You should be able to buy them.
This conversation is giving me vibes of that Elder Holland talk where he discusses how the church simply lags society which I thought was a really peculiar thing to say out loud. Either we have our own ways from God’s mouth to the prophet’s ears and we justify them and defend them, or we don’t really need them at all. But here we are stuck in the middle, trying to claim that garments=Jesus and that garments protect us but not in the ways our parents were taught.
I stopped wearing garments because the bottoms were giving me health issues but the surprise ending was how I felt shedding a layer of clothing up top. Go figure.
I agree the women’s garment top does not look that much different. It does not solve problem of the garments poking out around the collar of many shirts. A slightly open neck and I fight that all day.
The fabric choices do not sound helpful at all. I have never known Nylon to be anything but hot. An extra form fitting layer is always hot. Air cannot circulate around your body.
I’ve been inactive a long time now, but I remember this issue for me quite well. And I am a man:
After I went inactive around the age of 25, it took me about 6 months and two separate attempts to give myself permission to stop wearing the garments. I remember saying one time, this is the day I switch to regular underwear. But a mood came on me, depressive in nature, and I backed away. When I finally did stop wearing the garments, it was kind of a dare. I prayed in my mind and basically said, “God, I’m going to remove these and see if you still love me.”
For whatever reason, I was more ready by then. It was a pleasant evening of going to a clothing store and buying new undershirts and shorts. I purchased boxer briefs because they would feel similar to garments and ease the transition. Then, if memory serves, I took myself out for ice cream. A real selfcare kind of evening. The takeaway being I was so attached to the whole “garment of the holy priesthood” thing that the switch required selfcare. And I was a thoroughly privileged man who’d never been physically or emotionally irritated by the look or feel of my garments. Most of the years I wore them, I’d felt a great sense of honor.
Transitioning to anything else was huge! Peace of mind is my wish (prayer?) for each of you, including TBMs, however you feel yourself reacting to this news. Garments are incredibly significant to faith and well-being, for better and worse. Thanks Elisa, for putting a timely post up to provide for discussion.
Thank you Jake C., for sharing your experience and kind thoughts towards us all.
The changes in garment styles appear to be aimed at church members in African countries. One issue that is not often addressed is the issue of hue. Is there a reason garments need to be white? Other colors have been made available to members of the military and certain first responders to accommodate uniform requirements. Under clothing is more and more being offered in a variety of hues that can be matched with the skin tones of the buyer so that they don’t show through clothing. When a person of color wears garments that contrast significantly with their skin tone it shows more through their clothing. Could garments be offered in hues that are closer to the skin tones of most members in African countries? This is typically more of an issue for women than it is for men and more of an issue for people of color than it is for caucasians.
In the end it just seems best to empower members by recognizing that each can choose their own under clothing.
Enough with the fabric garments. My understanding is the garment is a coat of skins. So I think the best way to handle this is to say that a person’s skin is the garment. The markings can be tattooed on as part of the endowment, or more likely some time later. Fabric garments would only be needed until the tattoos are done.
think of the advantages!
Enough with the fabric garments. My understanding is the garment is a coat of skins. So I think the best way to handle this is to say that a person’s leather jacket and leather pants are the garment. The full leather outfit can be presented as part of the endowment, or more likely some time later. Fabric garments would only be needed until the leather togs are ready.
think of the advantages!
No more fabric
Allows sleeveless under garments
Can be worn night or day
Really does give you protection against car and motorcycle crashes if you wear it right
Looks weird to potential illicit sexual partners
Strange enough to count as costly signaling of belief
I think I’ll petition the First Presidency for permission to start a motorcycle gang of endowed Mormons. I think I’ll call it the Danites, or Porter’s Revenge.
Enough with the fabric garments. My understanding is the garment is a coat of skins. So I think the best way to handle this is to draw the markings directly on the person’s skin with a sharpie* (only dark conservative colors). This could be done as part of the initiatory.
Since the ink fades within a few weeks, to maintain full access to increased power and blessings, members would renew them following a monthly worthiness interview with the bishop. We could call it “Covenant Declaration”. The bishop will retrace the markings on adult men, who are then authorized to do the same for their wife/wives. Single sisters or shut-ins can just think happy thoughts, like they did with the sacrament during Covid. These regular check-ins will help the members stay committed and active and allow the bishop to maintain his quota of excommunications.
This can be adapted for the youth. To prepare them for the blessings of the temple, the bishop maintains modesty lines on their arms, legs, and torso. Using the same pen every month will remind the Lord’s battalion of eternal promises they made in third grade.
The temporary commandment to wear an extra layer of clothing will be fulfilled and we can exercise our moral agency to wear undies that don’t turn gray and fall apart after three washings.
*Local unit clerks can order sharpie pens from church distribution or consecrate permanent markers already on hand, following approval from their area authority.
@elisa
“A woman deciding whether and when to wear garments is often a first step into her claiming authority over her own body and soul.”
https://wheatandtares.org/2024/04/13/garments-women-and-the-autonomy-contagion/
I appreciate your posting the link to the earlier piece you wrote about garments. It was good to reread it. I love the above line that you wrote and those words have stayed with me. Thank you.
I’ve been following along with interest, though I no longer observe any of the rules regarding garments. But I did for decades and struggled to clothe my body with a sincere desire to fulfill what was asked of me. I have spent some time reviewing the blog posts from the past that were linked here and there. I read the recent excellent treatments here at W&T by Janey and Elisa and skimmed the comments, and went back to read the 2013 BCC post by Angela C, one of the most read posts in the entire history of that blog. That became rather a marathon because the OP was a thorough overview of garment issues, thus comments were massive. There were a couple of extremely verbose men who engaged a lot of thoughtful folks, vigorously defending their talking points in great detail. Def skimmed those, but I had to take a break. I came back and picked up where I left off, and noticed my side cursor was hardly moving and far from done, so I looked at the dates. Holy figleaves! Most of the comments came in two days, and they were closed at three. Epic post indeed.
I have observations.
Men’s and women’s bodies, clothing needs & difficulties, spiritual, psychological, emotional, and physical health needs, etc. are very different. Individuals are different. Nothing practical applies universally.
In general, men will far too often instruct women about women’s experiences, using themselves or their wife, mom, sister, etc. as the baseline. And also ignore, interrupt, monopolize, obfuscate, question, chat with each other, almost anything that isn’t listening and seeking understanding.
The stonewalling and gaslighting of (mostly) women seeking resolution to their undies’ problems happens in blog comments, bishops interviews, at the temple or distribution center, and over the pulpit, from both men and women in a position to help, who simply don’t have the tools to take seriously an individual’s needs.
It’s clear that the power-that-be don’t care.
One of the biggest ways many women are harmed by the garment system is from the psychological damage to their mental/emotional health. And yet in these discussions I saw very little about that aspect compared to the physical ailments that many women are expected to suffer through and resolve alone. As well, what about men’s mental/emotional health? Glimpses of that sort of issue show up in these discussions. But that’s all.
The church’s garment system is still ripe for examination and discussion, ideally with improvements as a goal. But the PTB stubbornly refuses, and instead continues the attempt to control the flaming mess with tiny accommodations such as this micro adjustment in the design of the armhole.
I have to admit that abandoning my own personal flaming mess and choosing undergarments from the marketplace hasn’t been 100% pleasant and comfortable. The same issues that present for women’s garments still need addressing, and the individual variables make for a formidable array of choices. Fit, comfort, function, style, price, and market availability (etc) are still challenges, but now I have options and the freedom to explore them, make my own mistakes and fix them, with no one’s oversight but my own. So. Much. Healthier.
After a major surgery a couple of years ago, I didn’t wear garments for about a month while I recovered – they were just too uncomfortable. As I began to heal, I realized I never wanted to wear garments again. Normal underwear is SOOOO comfortable in comparison. No scratchy seams, no double layer of clothing slowly sapping the life out of me when working in the hot humid yard. Such a relief!
“In the 21st century, I can’t imagine that any global organization (particularly one run by elderly men) can have control over it’s female members’ underwear AND stay relevant for very long.”
Yeah, that makes sense. But of course, the global organization I belong to isn’t run by elderly men.
Garments are outdated by 2 centuries. They are so uncomfortable, so ugly, and the person who invented them didn’t menstruate. I am losing faith in the organized religion because it tries to maintain such inappropriate control over personal decisions in members’ lives—like what kind of underwear they wear. Even taking attendance at church is so weird (I saw a relief society secretary taking attendance in the church app). They’re treating your personal faith like it’s a job you’re getting paid for—like business statistics. We have moved so far from Joseph Smith’s “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.” I cannot believe that the all-loving God I believe in cares about what kind of underwear people wear, or whether or not they go to meetings on Sundays. The kind of God I believe in would care more about how someone treats
other people.
And yes to this article—it’s not sleeves that make garments hot. It’s the entire extra layer of clothing!!! That hasn’t solved anything. And saying that it’s only for people in hot climates, are people going to start judging now if you’re wearing garments but it’s not hot enough? My mother also commented about how it’s only for people in hot climates like Africa—when we live in a hot climate ourselves. It’s so weird that sleeveless is “allowed” but still going to be socially judged by older or more conservative members.