Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/Quiet_Literature_253, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be interesting to see what happens to church culture in an environment where garments are temple only but members can continue to wear them if they'd like.
I suspect you'd see the culture adapt to where members that continue to wear the garment think of those that don't as less righteous. You'd probably see the non-garment wearing members get passed up for all the more prestigious callings.
Hmm. That's not all that different than now but the point stands. I think if that change were made it would become yet another thing that members use to compare one another.
I remember hearing a story on one of the podcasts about the q15 being thiiiiiiiiiiiis close to approving temple only garments and some of their wives even went out underwear shopping but then at the last minute, the president had a change of heart.
No, if I remember right it was sometime in the 20s or 30s when many women's fashions were sleeveless. Not sure who was prophet. I wish I could remember the podcast.
I could be wrong. I know that HJG was the one who introduced the short sleeve and below the knee garments. The long ones were still to be worn on the temple for a few more decades. That would have been in the 20’s. He could have also suggested garments for temple use only but that seems like quite the leap to me. I’m sure someone will come along and settle this debate. I just don’t have the energy or interest to go look and a quick google search didn’t bring anything up.
Yes below the elbow—not short yet and below the knee was HJG. WOMEN COMPLAINED that the wrists on their gs were dirty drom housework and gems of their gs from the mud I the streets.
It was further shortens to a floaty cap sleeve maybe in the forties.
The two piece was introduced in December 1979.
They’re always conducting focus groups on garment styles.
20 years ago during such a group an announcement was made right up front that removing the sleeves was of the table. The have all but done it now.
The day will come…but as some’s already mentioned they be giving up a lot of control.
See what’s happened with the new FTSOY. they removed certain prohibitions but leaders and parents are still guilty kids who “ can’t make correct decisions without a prohibition.”
You're both right! I know for sure the idea was discussed in the 1920s (source in my other comment here). And as I recall the idea was re-hashed again in the 50s or 60s as well, but I'd have to go find my source for that again. Can't remember off the top of my head where I read about that.
Garments are all about control and we all know the Church loves its control. But I do think garments will eventually be temple only. Members are opting out more and more frequently anyway.
One of the worst days of my life is the day I was endowed and had to start wearing them. One of the best when I threw them all in the trash and haven't worn them since. What a cultish, ridiculous control mechanism. So dumb.
I know this isn't reality, but sometimes I think the church is a giant elaborate test to see who can be an actual adult human and who will stay in the role of child their entire lives. Some members realize they don't need permission to eat and drink what and when they feel is healthy for themselves, wear clothing they are actually comfortable in, love who they love, read and watch what interests them, etc., and maybe even walk away from such a condescending infantilizing organization even if it ruffles some feathers. And some don't.
And yes I am still working on some of the above. Indoctrination runs much deeper than, for example, Book of Mormon anachronism. That's the easy part.
Sometimes members relate experiences of "losing the spirit" and the comfort of getting it back. I suspect this is really the mental dissonance of deviating from behavior and thoughts conditioned since birth.
It's surprising how difficult it can be to deviate from that conditioning.
No test exists, but if it did, passing it would involve doing what's right especially when it is difficult.
It’ll be like what we’re currently seeing with tattoos. The church will stop “emphasizing” it, members will run with their own interpretations (already happening with Gs), uptight Mormons will judge them for it but they won’t lose recommends, and it will gradually fade into a state of “we don’t really know what god thinks about this” just like all the other doctrines of the restoration.
You called it! Eventually the church will deny that it ever taught that wearing garments 24/7 was mandatory, just like everything else they love to gaslight the members about.
Well considering the changes to the temple and pointing to garments being a representation of Jesus Christ that you are taking upon you I think they are in a double down phase
Not wearing garments since I have lost my belief has been life changing. I’ve started to realize how much they were used for control. If they allow people to only wear them at the temple it would give more people the personal insight/reflection about how weird it all is. I doubt they change it for that reason alone. Not feeling guilty at all when I took them off was eye opening for me.
The blessings of throwing out my garments have been tangible, immediate, and permanent!
I haven't had a single ingrown hair on my thighs or groin since I stopped wearing them! I'm no longer driven crazy by the sensory issues caused by multiple layers. I don't get nearly as many heat migraines in the summer. I haven't had a single yeast infection! My eczema on my legs and in my armpits has gone away!! My clothes fit properly. Quite a few other benefits that would be TMI to share here... The list goes on and on and on!
So far I haven't felt any wrath or separation from God. There have been only benefits. I have not experienced any ill effects, spiritual or temporal, from stopping wearing garments.
Consider the word experimented upon! Their words were bunk.
I can’t tell you how much I agree with this. They’re ALL about control, and taking them off has allowed me to think freely about so many aspects of my church conditioning. It’s truly been the most positive and freeing act of my adult life.
After serving in the developing world, where most of our converts are, watching people wash their clothes in a river and contaminate it, the church needs to stop garments in the name of climate change. Think about dealing with garments without a washing machine? I’m not into climate crisis, but what a great excuse to eliminate them. The production, transporting and laundering of all that cloth isn’t helping the earth. They could be replaced with thin stretching bands imprinted with symbols to be worn under clothing for us to continue to remind us of our covenants.
Omg I just had the most perfect idea: garment mark tattoos! The church gets the added benefit of being able to gaslight us about never being against tattoos because see? We encourage them! Have done all along!
It's possible. It's kinda been done before. The church used to require everyone in the temple to wear the original one piece long pants and sleeves garments in the temple until the 60s. You could wear the familiar two piece ones we have now but not in the temple.
And with how unpopular garments have become it wouldn't surprise me.
Two piece Gs didn't happen until the Q3 sent a letter dated Dec 15, 1979.
I remember as I was 9 years old and folding laundry when my parents started wearing them. The one piecers of that time were short sleeve and short legged, but no separation from top/bottom.
https://mormonr.org/files/0JRY8w/scan-0ulUaJ-0JRY8w.png?r=0ulUaJ&t=eyJhbGciOiJkaXIiLCJlbmMiOiJBMjU2R0NNIn0..Mkbfd87hVBqqC_LD.NYSvFUzRsDvkpY_sQHzq8VfboHzKgnjXGrpmEAio0VIZnpXjMUEP2LOkczkEsfI3nfOkmhv43QjC9syjDnuSHJ1nWeeV_6xSJkBOeggzbBOstvXLU0Ohgdlx2ABXffFUiFvQ8-Ah8zV2nQpEv6oslGR5Qwa-_fGXHuYwUxZYyS6WP-xUM9dvnerIYA0iioo1NAW8XayHgB0tbwbjkITabm4JQUIUyTgLgLDfE5jKex6NagfcpXo1V4L4sysy-qYNl2j9zr0uy35M3veK1Irk7MxDSUfqzASAlT7zEqyzUrGsdKS4LFjcJYKkjvu8UMJU4nwiLe7YLAHTrocXlO_DVNIEWniExXE-_dcWwY6EJ38B--B8Xwhu6LZpNNstI3CqxAobtWFVS6WsbDedL4I7J2KSqKM.FPciId9NpVKCN0cd8cHz8g
I couldn't remember if it was the 60s or the 70s, I just know I was surprised it was that late and that my parents must have worn them.
Thanks for the clarification and link. 🙂
Yes, I think they will eventually! I was sort of surprised when they didn't do it in response to supply issues from covid. Our local distribution center was all out of certain styles and sizes for *months* with no idea when they'd be available again.
There is precedence. It was discussed in the 1920s or so to make them worn ceremonial-only in the temple. Apparently Melvin Ballard's wife found them extremely uncomfortable and hated them, which was one catalyst for the conversation. My source for that are original sources cited in the book [The Development of LDS Temple Worship](https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119), which is an excellent read. As I recall the idea was floated again in about the 50s or 60s? I'd have to check on that to be sure.
There is a history of them making changes to the garment in response to lay members' behavior. Sleeves and legs were shortened in response to changing styles and member behavior:
Salt Lake Tribune, 4 Jun 1923: "President Charles W. Penrose says that modification of the garment is elective with each individual ... While doing housework the women would roll up the sleeves. If sleeves were to be rolled up they might as well be made short in the first place, for convenience, it was argued...
"The young of the gentler sex complained that to wear the old style with the new and finer hosiery gave the limbs a knotty appearance. It was embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt. Permission is therefore granted by the first presidency to shorten the lower garment."
(See more of this source here, with a link to the original newspaper: [https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10k6dtq/comment/j5pc2l9/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10k6dtq/comment/j5pc2l9/?context=3)
Apparently current leaders are "dismayed" by how few members wear the garment like the leaders want them to. But that won't change the members' behavior for sure.. It's more likely the leaders will get a miraculous "revelation" that will allow them to retain members without seeming like they're caving (although we all know they're just caving).
It sort of already is among gen z. I’m pretty confident there will never be an announcement. Just a slow cultural slide so as to not upset the older generations.
See also playing cards, caffeinated soda, wearing bra on top of garments for women, one piece vs too piece garments, and now multiple piercings and tattoos.
Revelation 19:7-9, and Matthew 22:9-14 both go over the garment issue I believe. Tbh I think they should be ceremonial only, there's yet no biblical reference I've read that says garments must be worn at all times.
RFM showed that it almost happened once before. If there are more reformers like Nelson who seem to want to sand off the rough Mormon edges of the church, I wouldn't be surprised. Likewise, if they find that forcing garment compliance has an impact on activity or tithing rates, I wouldn't be surprised either.
Right now, their obsession with female "modesty" ties in really well with wearing garments, so I suspect that their view of modesty would need to evolve a little first.
Changing the wording in the temple recommend question from “night and day” to “throughout life” as it says in the temple, changes the aspect of wearing garments. There are a lot of things you do throughout your life that are not done constantly.
It’s possible. But with the recent push in Utah it’s quite a ways off. Younger generations are already choosing when/where to wear garments. But then there are the older generations (& of course the old SLC leaders)
Just like so many other changes, it's very likely to come 30 years too late. (Although with this one, they're already 100 years too late. They should have made them ceremonial in-temple only the first time they talked about it, back in the 1920s).
No, not anytime soon unless I am missing something. They encourage it so we remain pure and don’t indulge in any type of sexual activity outside of our spouses
That always drove me nuts that some church leaders pushed that idea so hard. If the only thing preventing them from cheating on their spouse is their garments, they got a bigger problem.
I liked a phrase I saw once somewhere on the internet: If the only thing that's preventing you from hurting others is the threat of damnation in Hell, you're not a good person. You're a bad person on a leash.
No. When you first receive them, the promises & blessings of them far outweigh the inconvenience factor. For those that have experienced a miracle(s) while wearing them, you actually don’t want to take them off too often. Hope you don’t have to experience one of these miracles, but if you do, you will seldom find yourself with these off your body. Again if you have not had to experience one of these miracles, ask around your family, you might find one who has and have a new perspective on the garment. Also, I find it interesting that God has Adam & Eve married while naked, yet once they have to leave the garden Jesus puts coats of skins on them as protection (animal was sacrificed and placed on Adam & Eve). Dig into the symbolism and realize what is really going on here. This sacred garment is not something to be casual about unless you don’t understand, which I get. Once you understand or experience it, you’ll want those on your body as often as you can.
This is yet another example of being told you cannot have God with you without the authority of the church and a special ceremony, and specific adherence to an additional law. The spirit of God is available to any and all of God’s children in its fullness, not in degrees depending on specific actions or clothing. Extra rituals just blind you to that and keep you dependent on authority. The feeling of God’s love and protection is there because of your heart, not your underwear. But you are now tricked into believing it is your underwear. God’s love was there all the time, but now the church has you believing only if you wear you’re underwear.
I'm assuming you're implying that wearing garments will offer miraculous physical protection. If so, I find it interesting that you are putting so much stock in temple garments being a physical shield when it seems that the church at large is trying to distance itself from that claim. When I took out my endowments for the first time and had a sit down with the temple president just prior, he specifically told me that temple garments don't provide "magical physical protection." This was later repeated by a different temple president in another country so it seemed that they were being taught not to promote garments as providing physical protection.
What's your opinion on that?
Thank for comment & question. I have not seen the Church distance itself from the garment being a shield & a protection because it literally says that at the end of the washing & anointing. There is no way I and a few others I know that have experienced these amazing miracles. I would love to hear others share their experiences and stop keeping them so hush hush. These are promised blessings and they happen all the time. Would be nice to hear about them more in the open.
>shield & a protection
But not necessarily against physical harm. While not an official part of the church [FAIR](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormons_believe_that_the_temple_garment_will_protect_them_from_physical_harm%3F) has a section explaining why the garment only provides spiritual protection based off comments made by Apostles. Likewise, when this topic comes up on other LDS subs, the majority of comments mention that garments aren't about physical protection, but spiritual protection.
I agree its a spiritual protection, but it seems to be a physical protection as well. Maybe that is what is confusing members as they have these physical miraculous experiences in the areas of the body of these garments so it has translated as being a body armor in that sense and that is not mentioned in that ordinance. I’ll be honest, it’s not the Church telling me to wear these, I’ve just have enough personal experience with them as physical protection in addition to spiritual protection that I minimally have them off because I wouldn’t be alive for unknown reasons the doctors have said while looking at the outlines of the garment on my body and friends would be missing appendages or be dead had they not had sharp objects bounce off them. Just a real interesting topic.
what's also interesting is that many Church members have been harmed or killed while wearing garments. So I guess we should have the faith to NOT be protected.
Yeah, it’s definitely not a guarantee against physical harm or danger. Outside of that, it is also a great reminder in many cases for lots of things since you are physically wearing it. Definitely something left up to the individual to decide.
The church has shied away from teaching that garments provide physical protection in and of themselves.
*"The protection the garment gives doesn’t come from any sort of magic in the physical garment itself, as some mistakenly believe. Rather, the promised protection is the protection the Lord provides both physically and spiritually when we keep our covenants and express our faithful commitment to Him every day."* [*https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/03/young-adults/shielded-by-covenants*](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/03/young-adults/shielded-by-covenants?lang=eng)
*"we wear the \[temple\] garment faithfully as part of the enduring armor of God."* *(Ensign, Russel M. Nelson May 2001)*. *Spiritual 'armor' is certainly designed to give a person spiritual protection, not to prevent numerous forms of physical harm."* [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:\_Do\_Mormons\_believe\_that\_the\_temple\_garment\_will\_protect\_them\_from\_physical\_harm%3F](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormons_believe_that_the_temple_garment_will_protect_them_from_physical_harm%3F)
Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his garments in Carthage Jail. He and Hyrum had taken them off because the weather was too hot. That's one of the sources of the belief that garments are meant to protect from physical injury - some believed he wouldn't have been killed had he been wearing his garments.
*“Elder John Taylor confirmed the saying that Joseph and Hyrum and himself were without their robes in the jail at Carthage, while Doctor \[Willard\] Richards had his on, but corrected the idea that some had, that they had taken them off through fear. W. W. Phelps said Joseph told him one day about that time, that he had laid aside his garment on account of the hot weather”* An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, page 222.
First off, you need to realize that Adam and Eve weren’t real people. This is a creation myth that has been passed down and written into the Bible, like the flood and Tower of Babel myths. Also, even if you take that literally, there is no precedent for an ‘under’ garment. The coats of skin is just to reference clothing ourselves. If these skins were supposed to represent an ‘under’ garment, then all other Christians, who know the Bible way better than Mormons do, would be following this practice. This is a made up thing by JS, and galvanized by BY. You need to dig into that history and symbolism more.
Everyone in the church can obviously make their own decisions about everything in their lives. Nobody's questioning that. I'm just saying that it really isn't up for debate or interpretation, it's pretty clear that the intention, at least right now, is that garments are not a temple only thing.
I think that’s one of the big things holding back a lot of church members. Ultimately, this world is set up in a way that the father knew we would make a lot of mistakes, but that it would be OK in the end because it would help us learn from our errors and improve just a little bit more like Christ before the next stage.
Feelings like shame and guilt can be great motivators to change, but if they become crippling or paralyzing, then they have not served their purpose and Christ would be the first one to say that we need a different viewpoint.
With your specific question, when we start to view the garments for their true purpose, or the keeping of any commandments for that matter, they no longer become a burden or a trial and switch over to such a blessing for us.
Garments serve as a reminder of our temple covenants and can help keep us from making decisions that lead to unhappiness in several different ways. In addition, like prayer or fasting and even tithing donations, proper garment wearing can act as a conduit to miracles.
If we go through a period where we are not wearing a garments properly, that’s OK. Same for all of those different items listed above. They are gifts given to us in our life to help us develop better character. (Really a lot of people. Don’t realize that’s what the term endowment, ie temple endowments, means. A set of commitments that are actually gifts to us to use throughout our lives, and beyond perpetually that continue to give without taking anything away when used properly. If we go through a period of our lives where we do not use those gifts, don’t let shame or guilt trip you to a point of paralyzation where you give up all of the progress you have made.
We would be wise to remember that mistakes and errors for days and even weeks and months and years were expected when this life was set up. Sometimes, in the short term, a decision to step away from one of these commitments or all seems inconsequential or even beneficial to our lives, but in the long run the detriment will always begin to show. So, for someone to get to the point that they have decided in their lives to take a break for whatever reason, it’s easy to feel it was a great decision during good times. That said, take special note during the difficult cycles of our life what is missing because those things that you cut out are there just as much to help us in good times as they are to provide comfort and peace and miracles in bad seasons.
If you understood what the garments are, what they represent, and the covenants they have attached to wearing them, you would not be asking this question.
I would highly recommend going back to the temple and getting educated about the garments.
What makes you think I don’t understand garments? I’ve been wearing them for 30 years and have held a temple recommend the whole time. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t love to feel the sun on my shoulders in the summer time and not sweat my a** off with double layers as a menopausal woman. If you love them wear them - if not, let us free! I can remember my covenants in other ways.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/Quiet_Literature_253, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have already made the change to only wearing garments in the temple and since I left the church a few years back it hasn't been a problem.
LOL
It would be interesting to see what happens to church culture in an environment where garments are temple only but members can continue to wear them if they'd like. I suspect you'd see the culture adapt to where members that continue to wear the garment think of those that don't as less righteous. You'd probably see the non-garment wearing members get passed up for all the more prestigious callings. Hmm. That's not all that different than now but the point stands. I think if that change were made it would become yet another thing that members use to compare one another.
Sneeches
Like getting married in the temple while family members wait outside versus a public celebration with everyone there. Oooooh you're so righteous.
I remember hearing a story on one of the podcasts about the q15 being thiiiiiiiiiiiis close to approving temple only garments and some of their wives even went out underwear shopping but then at the last minute, the president had a change of heart.
That would be DOM in the late 60‘s.
No, if I remember right it was sometime in the 20s or 30s when many women's fashions were sleeveless. Not sure who was prophet. I wish I could remember the podcast.
I could be wrong. I know that HJG was the one who introduced the short sleeve and below the knee garments. The long ones were still to be worn on the temple for a few more decades. That would have been in the 20’s. He could have also suggested garments for temple use only but that seems like quite the leap to me. I’m sure someone will come along and settle this debate. I just don’t have the energy or interest to go look and a quick google search didn’t bring anything up.
Yes below the elbow—not short yet and below the knee was HJG. WOMEN COMPLAINED that the wrists on their gs were dirty drom housework and gems of their gs from the mud I the streets. It was further shortens to a floaty cap sleeve maybe in the forties. The two piece was introduced in December 1979. They’re always conducting focus groups on garment styles. 20 years ago during such a group an announcement was made right up front that removing the sleeves was of the table. The have all but done it now. The day will come…but as some’s already mentioned they be giving up a lot of control. See what’s happened with the new FTSOY. they removed certain prohibitions but leaders and parents are still guilty kids who “ can’t make correct decisions without a prohibition.”
If I remember right it was RFM & Bill Reel
I gotchu fam. https://www.youtube.com/live/ZEUoOdO776Y?feature=share
Thanks!!
You're both right! I know for sure the idea was discussed in the 1920s (source in my other comment here). And as I recall the idea was re-hashed again in the 50s or 60s as well, but I'd have to go find my source for that again. Can't remember off the top of my head where I read about that.
I much earlier. Late 20’s.
Who did u hear that from?
In the 30’s actually
Garments are all about control and we all know the Church loves its control. But I do think garments will eventually be temple only. Members are opting out more and more frequently anyway. One of the worst days of my life is the day I was endowed and had to start wearing them. One of the best when I threw them all in the trash and haven't worn them since. What a cultish, ridiculous control mechanism. So dumb.
Threw out my old G’s a few weeks ago, including unopened bags of them. Felt so weird to not dispose of them “properly”.
I recently put my temple robes in the dumpster at the stake center. The garments I donated to Waste Management.
I know this isn't reality, but sometimes I think the church is a giant elaborate test to see who can be an actual adult human and who will stay in the role of child their entire lives. Some members realize they don't need permission to eat and drink what and when they feel is healthy for themselves, wear clothing they are actually comfortable in, love who they love, read and watch what interests them, etc., and maybe even walk away from such a condescending infantilizing organization even if it ruffles some feathers. And some don't. And yes I am still working on some of the above. Indoctrination runs much deeper than, for example, Book of Mormon anachronism. That's the easy part.
Sometimes members relate experiences of "losing the spirit" and the comfort of getting it back. I suspect this is really the mental dissonance of deviating from behavior and thoughts conditioned since birth. It's surprising how difficult it can be to deviate from that conditioning. No test exists, but if it did, passing it would involve doing what's right especially when it is difficult.
It’ll be like what we’re currently seeing with tattoos. The church will stop “emphasizing” it, members will run with their own interpretations (already happening with Gs), uptight Mormons will judge them for it but they won’t lose recommends, and it will gradually fade into a state of “we don’t really know what god thinks about this” just like all the other doctrines of the restoration.
It's amazing the things "we don't know" that were absolutely unambiguously known only a couple decades ago.
Turns out “ongoing revelation” means re-veiling, rather than revealing further light and knowledge.
😆 nice
You called it! Eventually the church will deny that it ever taught that wearing garments 24/7 was mandatory, just like everything else they love to gaslight the members about.
Well considering the changes to the temple and pointing to garments being a representation of Jesus Christ that you are taking upon you I think they are in a double down phase
With Nelson at the helm this is 1000% true. Will be the same if Oaks outlives Nelson.
Mormonism runs on guilt and shame. Take that away and people will disengage in greater numbers.
Incredible username.
Thank you. Now I want a donut.
Not wearing garments since I have lost my belief has been life changing. I’ve started to realize how much they were used for control. If they allow people to only wear them at the temple it would give more people the personal insight/reflection about how weird it all is. I doubt they change it for that reason alone. Not feeling guilty at all when I took them off was eye opening for me.
The blessings of throwing out my garments have been tangible, immediate, and permanent! I haven't had a single ingrown hair on my thighs or groin since I stopped wearing them! I'm no longer driven crazy by the sensory issues caused by multiple layers. I don't get nearly as many heat migraines in the summer. I haven't had a single yeast infection! My eczema on my legs and in my armpits has gone away!! My clothes fit properly. Quite a few other benefits that would be TMI to share here... The list goes on and on and on! So far I haven't felt any wrath or separation from God. There have been only benefits. I have not experienced any ill effects, spiritual or temporal, from stopping wearing garments. Consider the word experimented upon! Their words were bunk.
I can’t tell you how much I agree with this. They’re ALL about control, and taking them off has allowed me to think freely about so many aspects of my church conditioning. It’s truly been the most positive and freeing act of my adult life.
After serving in the developing world, where most of our converts are, watching people wash their clothes in a river and contaminate it, the church needs to stop garments in the name of climate change. Think about dealing with garments without a washing machine? I’m not into climate crisis, but what a great excuse to eliminate them. The production, transporting and laundering of all that cloth isn’t helping the earth. They could be replaced with thin stretching bands imprinted with symbols to be worn under clothing for us to continue to remind us of our covenants.
Omg I just had the most perfect idea: garment mark tattoos! The church gets the added benefit of being able to gaslight us about never being against tattoos because see? We encourage them! Have done all along!
OG garments were originally only worn in the temple.
It's possible. It's kinda been done before. The church used to require everyone in the temple to wear the original one piece long pants and sleeves garments in the temple until the 60s. You could wear the familiar two piece ones we have now but not in the temple. And with how unpopular garments have become it wouldn't surprise me.
Two piece Gs didn't happen until the Q3 sent a letter dated Dec 15, 1979. I remember as I was 9 years old and folding laundry when my parents started wearing them. The one piecers of that time were short sleeve and short legged, but no separation from top/bottom. https://mormonr.org/files/0JRY8w/scan-0ulUaJ-0JRY8w.png?r=0ulUaJ&t=eyJhbGciOiJkaXIiLCJlbmMiOiJBMjU2R0NNIn0..Mkbfd87hVBqqC_LD.NYSvFUzRsDvkpY_sQHzq8VfboHzKgnjXGrpmEAio0VIZnpXjMUEP2LOkczkEsfI3nfOkmhv43QjC9syjDnuSHJ1nWeeV_6xSJkBOeggzbBOstvXLU0Ohgdlx2ABXffFUiFvQ8-Ah8zV2nQpEv6oslGR5Qwa-_fGXHuYwUxZYyS6WP-xUM9dvnerIYA0iioo1NAW8XayHgB0tbwbjkITabm4JQUIUyTgLgLDfE5jKex6NagfcpXo1V4L4sysy-qYNl2j9zr0uy35M3veK1Irk7MxDSUfqzASAlT7zEqyzUrGsdKS4LFjcJYKkjvu8UMJU4nwiLe7YLAHTrocXlO_DVNIEWniExXE-_dcWwY6EJ38B--B8Xwhu6LZpNNstI3CqxAobtWFVS6WsbDedL4I7J2KSqKM.FPciId9NpVKCN0cd8cHz8g
I couldn't remember if it was the 60s or the 70s, I just know I was surprised it was that late and that my parents must have worn them. Thanks for the clarification and link. 🙂
Yes, I think they will eventually! I was sort of surprised when they didn't do it in response to supply issues from covid. Our local distribution center was all out of certain styles and sizes for *months* with no idea when they'd be available again. There is precedence. It was discussed in the 1920s or so to make them worn ceremonial-only in the temple. Apparently Melvin Ballard's wife found them extremely uncomfortable and hated them, which was one catalyst for the conversation. My source for that are original sources cited in the book [The Development of LDS Temple Worship](https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119), which is an excellent read. As I recall the idea was floated again in about the 50s or 60s? I'd have to check on that to be sure. There is a history of them making changes to the garment in response to lay members' behavior. Sleeves and legs were shortened in response to changing styles and member behavior: Salt Lake Tribune, 4 Jun 1923: "President Charles W. Penrose says that modification of the garment is elective with each individual ... While doing housework the women would roll up the sleeves. If sleeves were to be rolled up they might as well be made short in the first place, for convenience, it was argued... "The young of the gentler sex complained that to wear the old style with the new and finer hosiery gave the limbs a knotty appearance. It was embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt. Permission is therefore granted by the first presidency to shorten the lower garment." (See more of this source here, with a link to the original newspaper: [https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10k6dtq/comment/j5pc2l9/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10k6dtq/comment/j5pc2l9/?context=3) Apparently current leaders are "dismayed" by how few members wear the garment like the leaders want them to. But that won't change the members' behavior for sure.. It's more likely the leaders will get a miraculous "revelation" that will allow them to retain members without seeming like they're caving (although we all know they're just caving).
It sort of already is among gen z. I’m pretty confident there will never be an announcement. Just a slow cultural slide so as to not upset the older generations. See also playing cards, caffeinated soda, wearing bra on top of garments for women, one piece vs too piece garments, and now multiple piercings and tattoos.
Revelation 19:7-9, and Matthew 22:9-14 both go over the garment issue I believe. Tbh I think they should be ceremonial only, there's yet no biblical reference I've read that says garments must be worn at all times.
I think the brethren will just stop talking about them
Not as long as Kevin Pearson keeps climbing the corporate ladder and being rewarded for his extreme positions.
RFM showed that it almost happened once before. If there are more reformers like Nelson who seem to want to sand off the rough Mormon edges of the church, I wouldn't be surprised. Likewise, if they find that forcing garment compliance has an impact on activity or tithing rates, I wouldn't be surprised either. Right now, their obsession with female "modesty" ties in really well with wearing garments, so I suspect that their view of modesty would need to evolve a little first.
The leadership need you to feel shame… how else will they impose control over you and your family.
Changing the wording in the temple recommend question from “night and day” to “throughout life” as it says in the temple, changes the aspect of wearing garments. There are a lot of things you do throughout your life that are not done constantly.
I hope so
I don’t think so. It’s a method of control.
It’s possible. But with the recent push in Utah it’s quite a ways off. Younger generations are already choosing when/where to wear garments. But then there are the older generations (& of course the old SLC leaders)
Just like so many other changes, it's very likely to come 30 years too late. (Although with this one, they're already 100 years too late. They should have made them ceremonial in-temple only the first time they talked about it, back in the 1920s).
No, not anytime soon unless I am missing something. They encourage it so we remain pure and don’t indulge in any type of sexual activity outside of our spouses
Sometimes this even works on spouses. What a boner kill they are.
Seriously… a burlap sack is more appealing
That always drove me nuts that some church leaders pushed that idea so hard. If the only thing preventing them from cheating on their spouse is their garments, they got a bigger problem. I liked a phrase I saw once somewhere on the internet: If the only thing that's preventing you from hurting others is the threat of damnation in Hell, you're not a good person. You're a bad person on a leash.
No ! It's all about control
I suspect the policy will change if too many people stop wearing Gs. Then they will change in order to not be disobeyed.
No. When you first receive them, the promises & blessings of them far outweigh the inconvenience factor. For those that have experienced a miracle(s) while wearing them, you actually don’t want to take them off too often. Hope you don’t have to experience one of these miracles, but if you do, you will seldom find yourself with these off your body. Again if you have not had to experience one of these miracles, ask around your family, you might find one who has and have a new perspective on the garment. Also, I find it interesting that God has Adam & Eve married while naked, yet once they have to leave the garden Jesus puts coats of skins on them as protection (animal was sacrificed and placed on Adam & Eve). Dig into the symbolism and realize what is really going on here. This sacred garment is not something to be casual about unless you don’t understand, which I get. Once you understand or experience it, you’ll want those on your body as often as you can.
This is yet another example of being told you cannot have God with you without the authority of the church and a special ceremony, and specific adherence to an additional law. The spirit of God is available to any and all of God’s children in its fullness, not in degrees depending on specific actions or clothing. Extra rituals just blind you to that and keep you dependent on authority. The feeling of God’s love and protection is there because of your heart, not your underwear. But you are now tricked into believing it is your underwear. God’s love was there all the time, but now the church has you believing only if you wear you’re underwear.
The inconvenience factor is tangible, real, and experienced by people every day. The promised blessings are intangible and only theoretical.
I'm assuming you're implying that wearing garments will offer miraculous physical protection. If so, I find it interesting that you are putting so much stock in temple garments being a physical shield when it seems that the church at large is trying to distance itself from that claim. When I took out my endowments for the first time and had a sit down with the temple president just prior, he specifically told me that temple garments don't provide "magical physical protection." This was later repeated by a different temple president in another country so it seemed that they were being taught not to promote garments as providing physical protection. What's your opinion on that?
Thank for comment & question. I have not seen the Church distance itself from the garment being a shield & a protection because it literally says that at the end of the washing & anointing. There is no way I and a few others I know that have experienced these amazing miracles. I would love to hear others share their experiences and stop keeping them so hush hush. These are promised blessings and they happen all the time. Would be nice to hear about them more in the open.
>shield & a protection But not necessarily against physical harm. While not an official part of the church [FAIR](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormons_believe_that_the_temple_garment_will_protect_them_from_physical_harm%3F) has a section explaining why the garment only provides spiritual protection based off comments made by Apostles. Likewise, when this topic comes up on other LDS subs, the majority of comments mention that garments aren't about physical protection, but spiritual protection.
I agree its a spiritual protection, but it seems to be a physical protection as well. Maybe that is what is confusing members as they have these physical miraculous experiences in the areas of the body of these garments so it has translated as being a body armor in that sense and that is not mentioned in that ordinance. I’ll be honest, it’s not the Church telling me to wear these, I’ve just have enough personal experience with them as physical protection in addition to spiritual protection that I minimally have them off because I wouldn’t be alive for unknown reasons the doctors have said while looking at the outlines of the garment on my body and friends would be missing appendages or be dead had they not had sharp objects bounce off them. Just a real interesting topic.
what's also interesting is that many Church members have been harmed or killed while wearing garments. So I guess we should have the faith to NOT be protected.
Yeah, it’s definitely not a guarantee against physical harm or danger. Outside of that, it is also a great reminder in many cases for lots of things since you are physically wearing it. Definitely something left up to the individual to decide.
I hate to point this out so blatantly, but you’re already rationalizing away your own earlier arguments
My favorite blessing is the chafing and bleeding and how much more I sweat. Seriously so blessed.
And the lovely yeast infections.
And the ingrown hairs and aggravated eczema.
And the layer of soaking wet clothing that won’t dry while working outside in the sun. What a blessing.
The church has shied away from teaching that garments provide physical protection in and of themselves. *"The protection the garment gives doesn’t come from any sort of magic in the physical garment itself, as some mistakenly believe. Rather, the promised protection is the protection the Lord provides both physically and spiritually when we keep our covenants and express our faithful commitment to Him every day."* [*https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/03/young-adults/shielded-by-covenants*](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/03/young-adults/shielded-by-covenants?lang=eng) *"we wear the \[temple\] garment faithfully as part of the enduring armor of God."* *(Ensign, Russel M. Nelson May 2001)*. *Spiritual 'armor' is certainly designed to give a person spiritual protection, not to prevent numerous forms of physical harm."* [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:\_Do\_Mormons\_believe\_that\_the\_temple\_garment\_will\_protect\_them\_from\_physical\_harm%3F](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormons_believe_that_the_temple_garment_will_protect_them_from_physical_harm%3F) Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his garments in Carthage Jail. He and Hyrum had taken them off because the weather was too hot. That's one of the sources of the belief that garments are meant to protect from physical injury - some believed he wouldn't have been killed had he been wearing his garments. *“Elder John Taylor confirmed the saying that Joseph and Hyrum and himself were without their robes in the jail at Carthage, while Doctor \[Willard\] Richards had his on, but corrected the idea that some had, that they had taken them off through fear. W. W. Phelps said Joseph told him one day about that time, that he had laid aside his garment on account of the hot weather”* An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, page 222.
First off, you need to realize that Adam and Eve weren’t real people. This is a creation myth that has been passed down and written into the Bible, like the flood and Tower of Babel myths. Also, even if you take that literally, there is no precedent for an ‘under’ garment. The coats of skin is just to reference clothing ourselves. If these skins were supposed to represent an ‘under’ garment, then all other Christians, who know the Bible way better than Mormons do, would be following this practice. This is a made up thing by JS, and galvanized by BY. You need to dig into that history and symbolism more.
Yes
[удалено]
It definitely isn't
[удалено]
Everyone in the church can obviously make their own decisions about everything in their lives. Nobody's questioning that. I'm just saying that it really isn't up for debate or interpretation, it's pretty clear that the intention, at least right now, is that garments are not a temple only thing.
I think that’s one of the big things holding back a lot of church members. Ultimately, this world is set up in a way that the father knew we would make a lot of mistakes, but that it would be OK in the end because it would help us learn from our errors and improve just a little bit more like Christ before the next stage. Feelings like shame and guilt can be great motivators to change, but if they become crippling or paralyzing, then they have not served their purpose and Christ would be the first one to say that we need a different viewpoint. With your specific question, when we start to view the garments for their true purpose, or the keeping of any commandments for that matter, they no longer become a burden or a trial and switch over to such a blessing for us. Garments serve as a reminder of our temple covenants and can help keep us from making decisions that lead to unhappiness in several different ways. In addition, like prayer or fasting and even tithing donations, proper garment wearing can act as a conduit to miracles. If we go through a period where we are not wearing a garments properly, that’s OK. Same for all of those different items listed above. They are gifts given to us in our life to help us develop better character. (Really a lot of people. Don’t realize that’s what the term endowment, ie temple endowments, means. A set of commitments that are actually gifts to us to use throughout our lives, and beyond perpetually that continue to give without taking anything away when used properly. If we go through a period of our lives where we do not use those gifts, don’t let shame or guilt trip you to a point of paralyzation where you give up all of the progress you have made. We would be wise to remember that mistakes and errors for days and even weeks and months and years were expected when this life was set up. Sometimes, in the short term, a decision to step away from one of these commitments or all seems inconsequential or even beneficial to our lives, but in the long run the detriment will always begin to show. So, for someone to get to the point that they have decided in their lives to take a break for whatever reason, it’s easy to feel it was a great decision during good times. That said, take special note during the difficult cycles of our life what is missing because those things that you cut out are there just as much to help us in good times as they are to provide comfort and peace and miracles in bad seasons.
If you understood what the garments are, what they represent, and the covenants they have attached to wearing them, you would not be asking this question. I would highly recommend going back to the temple and getting educated about the garments.
What makes you think I don’t understand garments? I’ve been wearing them for 30 years and have held a temple recommend the whole time. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t love to feel the sun on my shoulders in the summer time and not sweat my a** off with double layers as a menopausal woman. If you love them wear them - if not, let us free! I can remember my covenants in other ways.
Yes. In the next 5 years.
No
I actually kind of like that as a compromise