- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Cadence said – Quote:Without trying to offend all I care to say is garments are in my top 5 of things that need to go in the church
No offense here.
Cwald said –
Quote:
It’s creepy this is even an issue. … we’re taking about underwear rules and requirements.I like ritual items. Jewish caps, priests sashes, rosary’s and beads for prayer etc. For me I would create medallion or ring. You receive it during the initiatory with the same symbolic meaning. You wear it – whether on your finger, a chain around your neck or a key chain with you vile of oil. Symbols. The TR question could then be simply do you keep the symbols you were taught sacred.
Oh I like the ring idea! I think there’s a lot of different things we could wear something that symbolizes our covenants besides the garment. I have personally decided that I don’t wear my garments for things like working out or if I’m going to spending all day outside in mid-summer. Also, I think it’s fun to walk around the house in something cuter than garments and maybe actually sleep in something different. It definitely helps a lot with confidence and feeling attractive for me as a wife. Am I going to tell my bishop this? No way. It’s definitely between YOU and the Lord. You decide what works for you and then you can answer the TR interview question confidently.
SamBee wrote:It’s a kind of way of identifying strangers as LDS.
Exactly. It’s signaling. Larsen talked a lot about this on his mormom privilege podcast.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
A metaphor for Mormonism: Outside – well groomed + kind of square, friendly, boring chapel buildings, conservatism, small town
Inside – hidden garments + handshaking, Jesus in America, amazing looking temples, radically different theology, your own planet
kcarp: Quote:Word in the street is, new garments are coming. They will even involve cup sizes. Who woulda thunk
That’s great! That’s one of the same things I recommended in my post.
Do we dare pray for sleeveless. Those little flaps on my shoulders are nightmarish. Not long enough to stay down, but enough fabric to bunch. A basic camisole would be fulfill my dreams. Mom3….sleeveless will never happen. Garments have become a modesty control mechanism of women for the church culture. Not the original purpose of garments but when we are forcing babies and young toddlers to wear under shirts for fear of showing shoulders, the thought of YW and women wearing sleeveless shirts or dresses becomes outright porn territory. They have become in the culture the ultimate way to police what lds women wear. My personal opinion of course, but for health reasons alone garments should optional for women (and men) except for temple worship. Dax – I agree 100%. I even knew it when I posted it, but a girl can wish, even if she knows it won’t come true. Ironically I believe the very opposite would make the garment more significant and sacred, but I know that others see it differently. I actually don’t see how you could do bra cups without straps, so I would think the cap sleeves have to go. But I’m sure someone somewhere will screw it up. Rumor has it (pretty well placed rumor) that there was a vote and all but one of the Q12 voted to remove the cap sleeve, so here we are, still with a cap sleeve. They bunch and poke out of even a cap sleeve shirt. But the worst think about them is that they make the tops impossible to be fitted to the bust. Same for men, well for me at least. With certain tops I spent a lot of time during the day digging the sleeves out of my armpits. Don’t push the issue… they’d probably be more likely to go long sleeves rather than sleeveless to address the issue. :shh: 
The only time I don’t wear mine is when I’m out exercising, in this case I’d get seriously injured physically if I wore garments while exercising.
cwald wrote:Cadence wrote:Without trying to offend all I care to say is garments are in my top 5 of things that need to go in the church
Yes.
It’s creepy this is even an issue. … we’re taking about underwear rules and requirements.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Amen!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Seems to me the de facto attitude of most garment wearing LDS is that garments have two roles. One is that they serve as base underwear with all the – ahem – stuff that happens with underwear. The second role is spiritual in nature. As long as one role is considered more important than the other, the other will suffer. From a “design” point of view it seems we wouldnt want to mix functions as important and opposite as basic hygiene with higher spiritual symbolism. I mean just because im out for a jog, why shouldn’t I want the same spiritual protection as when im walking down the street. And how is wearing a holy piece of clothing (and which I can only purchase from the church) against my bum keeping it holy?
The more I think about it, the more I think we need to change our basic attitude towards garments and probably designs.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I actually don’t see how you could do bra cups without straps, so I would think the cap sleeves have to go. But I’m sure someone somewhere will screw it up. Rumor has it (pretty well placed rumor) that there was a vote and all but one of the Q12 voted to remove the cap sleeve, so here we are, still with a cap sleeve. They bunch and poke out of even a cap sleeve shirt. But the worst think about them is that they make the tops impossible to be fitted to the bust.
It’s really hard to feel good about garments when I consider that, as a woman, my daily underwear choices are determined by a committee of elderly men whom I have never met.
Actually, I wish that we could dispense with a lot of the magical thinking that seems to surround garments. Even when I was fully TBM, cutting up and burning the worn-out ones always felt a little cult-like to me. Especially because the rules of garment-wearing aren’t actually codified anywhere the way that, say, U.S. flag etiquette is. You only know how to dispose of them ‘correctly’ if you hear it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a mission companion that… Anyway, I confess that I’ve just *thrown them away* on occasion (I’m sure most women have at some point) and you know what? If THAT is the thing taht keeps me out of the Celestial Kingdom – and not, for example, the fact that I refuse to spend eternity worshipping my husband – then I can deal with it.
I’m also really disturbed by the fact that, as Dax mentioned, garments seem to serve a totally different purpose for men as they do for women – even though they are both meant to represent the same thing. (Roughly. Men and women do make slightly different covenants in the endowment, but as far as I know, the initiatory is the same.)
Good to know that new styles are coming down the pipeline. I was about to order a bunch of new ones, but I’ll hold off. My timing on these things seems to stink – I had JUST ordered like ten pairs when the Carinessa ones came out.
Joni wrote:It’s really hard to feel good about garments when I consider that, as a woman, my daily underwear choices are determined by a committee of elderly men whom I have never met.
I was thinking the same thing last night, only about how it relates to my wife’s underwear. I had never ever thought about it before but a bunch of old guys sitting around a conference table have determined what my wife should be wearing in front of me and in private for the rest of her life. It’s kind of a weird, angry feeling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.