For those who might be curious about the Morg’s new polygamy pj’s...

They are nearly sleeveless. The “cap” sleeve covers a good 1/2 inch less than the Carinessa garment top. It covers a whopping 1/4 inch of my upper arm. The arm hole is cut large enough that I can wear cap sleeve dresses no problem.

Marks are screenprinted. No more awkward “nipping out.”

On the sides of the top and inner thigh there is breathable mesh. Both pieces breathe well and have stretch to them.

The top is comfortable. I really don’t notice it at all.

On me, at least, it is not modest. It shows quite a bit of cleavage! I asked my nevermo mom what she thought of them. She remarked that she thought the church was doing anything to retain members.

The bottoms hit six inches above the top of my knee cap. I did cheat by ordering it in petite (lots of gals do this by claiming the inseam fits better... sure!), but still it was mid thigh. Ok.

I personally think it’s a bit funny. I know so many women who have been very self-righteous about wearing a “full short sleeve.” Guess God likes cap sleeves now?

They are so much more humane than older styles. What took them so long?

and I've been rather surprised. It's been a while since I wore them. I agree with your mother--doing anything to retain members.

Making it easier to "Believe"...

That's a far cry from the ugly things my parents wore. My father's threadbare, yellow-stained garmies with the butt flap turned my stomach.

To be fair, they looke ridiculous on everybody. Even on stud-muffin me.

will they fit under your speedo ?

Yep, yeller in front, brown skid mark on the the butt flap.

Now I gotta spew chunks

To turn an old joke to a new purpose:

T.B. Momo went to the doctor for his annual physical, during which the doctor said. "now I will need a urine sample, a fecal sample and a sperm sample."

To which T.B. replied, "Oh here, take my garmies!"

Nyar nyar nyar!

Thanks for the info.!

I'm sharing it with my daughters

P

that's HOT OPie ~


brb ~ using imagination ~

A friend sent me pictures of her son's temple marriage. I couldn't believe my eyes, the bride's dress looked sleeveless and my friend wore a white dress with very shire sleeves. I would have been sent back to the dressing room for arm covers in my temple days.

wear their temple dress for the wedding and their wedding dress for the pictures and reception, at least that is what my TBM aunt says.

I wore a temple dress. The wedding dress was for pictures and the reception that night.

"polygamy pjs" - I love it!

Why are you wearing them?

You're on here, presumably you don't believe.

If you're trying to pass, no one would ever know anyway.

Is this for your spouse you're doing it?

I was wondering the same thing . Why are they active garment wearing, temple going Moron members in this group?
Where I come from this is referred to as a hypocrite.

A perennially touchy topic on RfM.

Some people are trapped being active. Life is not always simple or straight forward.

We should value those who are still "in" posting here. They have the best perspective on what is currently going on with the rank-and-file.

Can anyone explain, or better yet show, what is meant by nipping out? I suppose it's not quite like eating out.

*I'm with ziller*

> [On] me... not modest. It shows quite a bit of cleavage!
>

Shows? I need to see more movies. Are braziers not worn atop them and isn't a shirt still customary?

It's hard to picture what's not pictionary.

M@t

HF in his great discretion now allows women to decide whether to wear their bras over or under the holy garment.

"Nipping out" refers to when a woman's nipples are erect and visible through clothing.

Oh? Guess this changed somewhere along the line and I didn't notice, or it was after I left. When I went through (1965) we were told ABSOLUTELY worn next to skin with bra over. I tried this for years of discomfort until I finally started wearing my bra under. At which point me then teenage daughter scolded me about Heavenly Father's rules about that. I told her that when Heavenly Father wore a bra, he could make rules about bras.

What I am interested in is that the marks are screen printed on the garment. No more sewn marks? That, I think, would be a really big change. And if the marks are screen printed, can they wear out?

Screen printing is probably cheaper and you will have to be replaced once the print wears off.

This "church" will make a profit by hook or by crook.

Just get a Sharpie! Hehehe

canuck guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I am interested in is that the marks are
> screen printed on the garment. No more sewn
> marks? That, I think, would be a really big
> change. And if the marks are screen printed, can
> they wear out?

The sewn ones always in unraveled on their own pretty quickly was my experience.

Have to laugh at how they are emphasizing these new garments are "close-fitting"

Just more Morm-morphing indeed.

NewG’sReview Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those who might be curious about the Morg’s
> new polygamy pj’s...
>
> They are nearly sleeveless. The “cap” sleeve
> covers a good 1/2 inch less than the Carinessa
> garment top. It covers a whopping 1/4 inch of my
> upper arm. The arm hole is cut large enough that I
> can wear cap sleeve dresses no problem.
>
> Marks are screenprinted. No more awkward
> “nipping out.”
>
> On the sides of the top and inner thigh there is
> breathable mesh. Both pieces breathe well and have
> stretch to them.
>
> The top is comfortable. I really don’t notice it
> at all.
>
> On me, at least, it is not modest. It shows quite
> a bit of cleavage! I asked my nevermo mom what she
> thought of them. She remarked that she thought the
> church was doing anything to retain members.
>
> The bottoms hit six inches above the top of my
> knee cap. I did cheat by ordering it in petite
> (lots of gals do this by claiming the inseam fits
> better... sure!), but still it was mid thigh. Ok.
>
>
> I personally think it’s a bit funny. I know so
> many women who have been very self-righteous about
> wearing a “full short sleeve.” Guess God likes
> cap sleeves now?
>
> They are so much more humane than older styles.
> What took them so long?

What on earth? The cult is always changing to keep the flock...

Pictures or it didn't happen.

I'm from the era that when the Sears-Roebuck and/or Montgomery Ward catalog came in, the guys in the neighborhood would get together are stare and drool over the models in the women lingerie section.

I did a google search for Mormon garments and the only catalog I could find required a LDS user name and password to access.

Must be too sacred for the non members to see.

I have noticed young Mormon women on YouTube who say they are wearing garments, but show some cleavage, and wear dresses/shorts that in the days when I was TBM, the garments would show and you never could have gotten away with. The slightest cleavage would have gotten you in big trouble, and unless you cheated, garment revealed. I felt the impulse to chew them out, which is silly because I no longer believe in any of it. I'm glad the garments have changed! Yes, the Q15 bigwigs are desperate to retain their young people. Generation Z is now hitting adulthood, and they don't want to lose them like they did so many of their Millennials.

There are YouTube videos of young women in garments? Another thing I can avoid looking at there.

Gasp! Are you saying that the given-by-revelation-never-to-change patterns of the holy garments of the priesthood are changing?

Again?

("...the original 19th-century union-suit style was accepted within Mormon doctrine as being unalterable. In 1906, LDS Church president Joseph F. Smith characterized as a "grievous sin" any attempt, in the name of changing fashion trends, to modify the 1840s garment pattern, which he characterized as "sacred, unchanged, and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them."")

Once again, the church contradicts itself.
How about that.

Back in the olden times of the Church the garment meant something different than it does today. It was designed to cover your nakedness. Today they still teach that in the temple today but the definition of nakedness has changed. Exceot if you are watching porn men.

Remember in the "DC" it says whether it is my voice or my servants it is the same as if I were speaking it. Meaning if the 12's makes a decision it is the same thing as Jesus would be doing or something to that effect.

So members are taught to wear the garment. They do not look at the history or the early teachings. They look at what is happening today. If you were one of the 12 and saw a problem of young people falling away or not wearing the garment, what would you do? It affects your tithing and church numbers, etc. So you fix the problem. After all your Calling and Election is made sure and you can't screw up. Bottom line, keep members, keep them wearing some sort of a garment, keep the tithing dollars coming in. "We have to keep up with the modesty the best we can." I think the 12 really had a problem with the RS putting the pressure on the 12 to change the stuff for women.

So the brethren make the changes knowing that Jesus, as he says in the DC, would approve. How can you loose at the top with what ever decision you make? How can you be held accountable?

Will it make the young women happy? Probably not.

You have to look at the whole product line if you are a corporation. They have changed the packaging. I know that I hear a lot in Church classes, stake conference talks, High Council talks this new and improved phrase "You are on a covenant path." It's like Tide saying their product is new and improved but it still does not clean like it used too.

I just wished that my wife who passed would have taken her garments off a few times when we went to bed. But no, it was the wear them 24 hours!!!!

Really? People wear them to bed also? Do they change every 12 hours, or what? This sounds so gross.

amiable Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? People wear them to bed also? Do they
> change every 12 hours, or what? This sounds so
> gross.

Yes, really. In fact, most mormons consider it a requirement to wear them to bed.

On my mission (the 2 years I actually wore the silly things), we usually didn't have enough of them (or time or money to do laundry every week), so we'd only change 'em every 2-3 days.

Yeah, they reeked and had stains and got seriously worn before we could replace 'em. But hey, they were holy (in more ways than one)!

No matter how attractive, I'd have a problem knowing that all women were wearing the same underwear which was dictated by males running a cult.

I like to go to a store an buy what suits me.

Strikes me as an exciting development--in more than one way. Hubba-hubba!

From my brilliant wife: "In 50 years, it will be down to a wrist bracelet."

That IS brilliant.
However will they fit all the marks on there? :)

A good six months ago, I was talking with my mom and she said, "you're not going to believe these new garments I got." So she went and grabbed a pair of the garment bottoms for me to see. I could not believe my eyes. They were exactly like men's boxer briefs. They didn't even reach close to mid thigh.
So much for not being 'of the world'. Soon they'll be exactly like a bra and panties.
I also find it quite ironic that they have to survey the women to find out what they prefer. Don't they have a direct line to the almighty, who can answer those questions?

Back in the 1950s my Mom once told my sisters and me that eventually women's garments would be like a bra and panties with some markings. 60+ years later and still hasn't happened. Glad I got out.

If the women had told the truth on those surveys, the new garments would be in the style of--why in the world are y'all concerning yourselves about my damn underwear?!

"It shows quite a bit of cleavage!" We are talking about underwear, correct?

THAT is how you know its a cult. XD

Moe Howard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It shows quite a bit of cleavage!" We are talking
> about underwear, correct?


'It' doesn't show any cleavage; 'She' does, IF, and WHEN, she can... if we're (the world is) lucky. Nip out everybody! Anyway

M@t

And for the young ladies, they've come out with an entirely new line, "Helen's Secret".

Back in the day you had to have a long "cap" sleeve if you wanted it to cover the garmie sleeve. I think when they came out with the 2 piecers, the sleeve got shorter. I was imprisoned in them almost 5 years while they were still 1 piece. The marks were sewn in with a square of solid white fabric behind the mark. So if you wore anything the least bit see through you'd just see the squares over your titties pretty easily. We wore undies and bra over them. If you didn't wear undies over the garmies you were pretty exposed. You had 2 choices of fabric, nylon and cotton. I lived in an extremely humid place for a couple of years. The nylon ones just stuck to you and the cotton ones would get wet with sweat and stretch out. You think they are hideous now--you know nothing.

next step, temple only time you wear garments.

LOL this is getting so predictable.

Satan is winning. 1 inch at a time.

I wonder what the profit margin is on these new style garms.

I can imagine lots of women with means will buy 28 new pieces--14 tops and 14 bottoms.

Ka-ching!$!$!

Isn't it revealing horny Joe decided to go with the Mason's garments for members to wear to announce they were in his "club" instead of say a mark on their arm?

Guess it was handy. His ideas were very often not "his" prophetic ideas after all but he sure liked spreading the lie that they were. (he did this also with the golden plates idea which he copied from a tale originating in Canada).

And, remember that when he was killed, after he shot at the mob killing two people, that he was found NOT wearing his garments.

Hmmm.....interesting indeed.

"No matter how attractive, I'd have a problem knowing that all women were wearing the same underwear which was dictated by males running a cult."

If garments are about modesty, more likely dictated by the sisters, at least in my experience.

Modesty limits competition from other females.

My non-mo daughter didn't used to dress modestly. But soon after marriage, I heard her refer to a girl in a park as a "skank", because she had shorts that went just below her bottom.

I also visited my daughter's state college with my TBM mom and sister. Heard them complain of girls wearing tank tops.
Whereas my brother went to same college for a graduation and joked I should videotape a lady with bouncing boobs coming up the stairs. He is now a bishop.

I've also seen in our nearby city, various women trying to shut down espresso stands with scantily clad ladies because they will "hurt the children".

And on and on.

BTW, my wife and I quit church 20 years ago, and she kept wearing her garment bottoms up until about 5 years ago. Said they were comfortable, but seems the greater purpose was to reduce my attraction so I wouldn't touch her.

Which is another reason I suspect women might be behind the whole thing.

Starting with Joe Smith and continuing to today in every bishop's office.

So women have a say about minor changes in style? Probably, but so what? So nothing.

Exactly. If women had more of a say, there would be the option of not having to sleep in garments, or even better, only worn while inside the temple.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2018 10:17PM by doyle18.

Primary difference in male control vs. female control: one is visible the other is not.

I plan to stick with a bra and cute underwear. No white magic undies for me!