Some elderly and disabled cant wear garmies because the wear depends. Does the church consider them breaking covenants?

Why can't this work?

I know elderly people who wear depends, it just goes under the garment, no problem.

IMHO people who wear skinny jeans should not wear garments. They bunch up and bulge in places, \often in the back and down the legs and it appears they may have had an accident. Not sexy at all. Maybe I am just too old to appreciate the look. lol

I wouldn't be caught dead in them... not to mention alive. And no, it doesn't depend on anything! I'm always be too old - I mean too smart - for those things. Ewww

M@t

They'd have to change that practice. I think women have always used sanitary pads and such under garments and Depends would be a similar situation.

I do know the handbook said that military members may "lay aside" their garments at the discression of the member with no penalty.

Then "take them up again" as feasible.

At one time we could get markings for the inside of our uniforms. Some of us just sewed markings ourselves. We were of the generation that our mothers/grandmothers made garments and temple clothes at home.

With two piece garments in the worst case just wear the tops.

However..... think of the money to be made from dispoable depends style garment bottoms.

How do I get booked on Shark Tank?.

Dont worry !!! You don't stand any chance of horning in on LDS Inc's (super stupid) magic underwear marketing monopoly to its brain dead MORmON members in any form !!! LDS Inc has kept that market (literally) sewn up for themselves going back to tyrant Brigham. Go ahead, ask what "officially approved pattern" really means when LDS inc leaders say it.

scootergirl57 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some elderly and disabled cant wear garmies
> because the wear depends. Does the church consider
> them breaking covenants?


Of course they can wear their garments. Why wouldn't they?

I never went to yo temple, so I never had the honour of wearing them. It seems like they'll be very uncomfortable, especially in hot weather. I thought they were form fitting though, do they wouldn't show through regular clothing , so wouldn't depends be hard to pull up over ? The part about the form fitting jeans made me laugh

Hockey Rat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never went to yo temple, so I never had the
> honour of wearing them. It seems like they'll be
> very uncomfortable, especially in hot weather. I
> thought they were form fitting though, do they
> wouldn't show through regular clothing , so
> wouldn't depends be hard to pull up over ? The
> part about the form fitting jeans made me laugh


No it wouldn't be hard at all. Garments are loose fitting. And they most certainly do show thru clothing. :)

I never could. No way.

I never have...so glad I dodged that bullet! I imagine it would be hard for those who did and then to transition to not wearing them.

I can always spot a Mo woman because of the garment line that you can see on the thigh. Lol How is anyone ok with wearing them?!

I believe that most TBMs will put up with them no matter what the weather, discomfort, or personal plumbing situation. But they sure do complain about it! I was in a room full of TBM women (went to my sister's book club with her) and these women were ALL complaining about their garments. At a book club meeting. Wow.

Dad always changed out of his garments when he was going to see the doctor.

more people WON'T wear them...


just sayin'

It's an issue for women during periods as well.

When I was taking temple prep classes (but never ended up going to the temple, thus never receiving garments), we got into a side discussion of garments. I was worried since I have very heavy periods. How would I stick a pad on garment bottoms and have that be effective at all? I'd surely bleed through onto my pants....every woman's nightmare. I was told that women were to put their panties and bras on OVER top their garments now matter what. So my teacher said that some women put the pad on their garments, and then they put their panties overtop the garment to try to hold the pad in place. Can you imagine?

That sounded insane to me. I knew I'd just be sinning by wearing a pad with panties under the garments because I had to. Glad I never actually got to that point.

DW, even back in the one-piece era, always wore normal knickers under the garment during periods. If it's not an issue to letter-of-the-law DW, then it shouldn't be an issue to anyone.

Not the problem you are imagining. When I wore g's and had my period, you simply wore normal panties under the g's with whatever kind of hygiene product you chose.

It was never a problem.

I'm so glad I dodged that bullet, as I managed to escape before having to wear regulation underwear. I get the idea that some would have considered me a serious sinner because I would have worn regular underwear underneath the garment once a month because I'd be worried about bleeding on those things.

I'm also the type who has to wear 100% cotton underwear and sleep commando, or I get yeast infections. Knowing my body, those things would have been a constant thing for me if I had to wear garments. There have been threads on Babycenter about Mormon women complaining about those infections, yet they're too brainwashed to ditch garments in favor of regular underwear.

adoylelb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm so glad I dodged that bullet, as I managed to
> escape before having to wear regulation underwear.
> I get the idea that some would have considered me
> a serious sinner because I would have worn regular
> underwear underneath the garment once a month
> because I'd be worried about bleeding on those
> things.

Lived in the BYU community for over 12 years, and ^^^ this is exactly what we girls did so not sure where you are getting the idea that you would have been seen as a serious sinner. You would have been normal and typical

> I'm also the type who has to wear 100% cotton
> underwear and sleep commando, or I get yeast
> infections. Knowing my body, those things would
> have been a constant thing for me if I had to wear
> garments.

There are 100% cotton g's. Where are you getting your information from? The sleeping commando would have raised eye brows, admittedly

There have been threads on Babycenter
> about Mormon women complaining about those
> infections, yet they're too brainwashed to ditch
> garments in favor of regular underwear.

Perhaps the new g's that are out there are no longer 100% cotton? That was all I wore back in the 80's and 90's

The panties over the garments actually worked pretty well, and the bra over the garment top wasn't bad either except when the weather was very hot. I had to get used to the harsher bra fabric next to my skin once I ditched the garments after leaving. Yes, I was a die-hard mormon in my younger days. I joyfully wear lots of color next to my skin now.

I had a friend that was severely disabled and confined to an electric wheelchair. She had a special garment that was like a hospital gown with the marks sewn on.

If an organization can dictate to you what to wear for underwear then you are well and truly church broke.

I don't know about breaking covenants but I know that older people should not wear garments that are difficult to take on and off and complicate maintaining cleanliness. Old age ain't for sissies. Illness, medications, loss of balance and agility, bone loss, all put a person of any age at risk when dressing and undressing. The very act of dressing can cause pain. I'm a nevermo. I see the garments as a powerful tool used to retain membership. I doubt JS ever dreamed that the garments would evolve to become a hair shirt, a constant source discomfort and irritation.

Here at my Assisted Living, there are many (mostly) TBMs, and they wear Depends with their garments. Of course, they wouldn't speak directly to me regarding such 'sacred' things but I have never overheard any of them complaining to one another about any inconvenience.