https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9815285/Mormon-women-beg-church-redesign-sacred-undergarments-complaining-cause-UTIs.html

A relative in church leadership told me the church has a committee looking into garment changes. He said wearing them might not be mandatory for getting a temple recommend. He said people in certain parts of the world can’t wear them and garments cause problems with certain people. I have noticed the younger church member just don’t wear them.

Of course the church will push any form of control they can and old church leaders don’t like to change things but the church often has to change to avoid problems with public opinion or demands from the membership. Interview questions about oral sex were dropped because of member complaints.

Apparently members especially women hate garments. It could be wearing them becomes no longer mandatory for a temple recommend and in time they go the way of the dodo. I think there is a trend in watering the temple down. The church has built more temples than people interested in going to them so they are going to make it easier to go.

I seem to remember some kind of discussion about only requiring a person to wear the garment when actually doing a temple session. That seems like a reasonable solution. If members still wanted to wear garments at other times, go for it.

I think that’s where it’s headed. You wear the garments in the temple and wearing them outside is optional.

The members for the most part hate wearing garments and it’s getting bad publicity.

I had problems wearing them. The chafed my groin areas. I had gobs of skin healing lotion and talcum powder trying to reduce rashes. I couldn't tell anyone about having raw sores. My MP thought the greater the misery and sacrifice, the greater the missionary you could become. He would have told me to man up and bear it. That was his response to missionary complaints.

I hope they rethink the mandate to wear them all the time.

Instead of garments, the church could have a pin that looks like a fraternity or sorority pin (a.k.a. badge.) The longer you've been in, the more blinged-out the pin. You could have various dongles (charms) to show high level callings that you've had. People would love that.

The endowment started off as a secret club of insiders who marked their underwear to remind themselves of the oaths they made and to show loyalty to the club.

The underwear tradition has just morphed into something silly and it’s getting bad publicity. The church needs to retain members. The members are saying we are tired of wearing these. Since Russ likes to change things the members are going change more!

I'd be in favour of ditching the things. If only because it's entirely weird and uncomfortable and embarrassing for both sides when a male leader has to ask a female member about her undergarments.

I mean that is just beyond the pale as far as religion goes.

I got new underwear today. As a male, I've been enjoying the Sheath 4.0 line that offers great wicking and separation between things. Nothing sticks anymore.

I was thinking that garments sure did suck as I opened my fresh package of actually functional underwear

Bingo! The church has attempted to modernize garments but it’s a big fail. We live in a world of choices and underwear is pretty personal. Garments are a failed holdover like many things in the church. Temples will just morph into a place members go to swear their loyalty to Jesus. The Masonic aspect of it is disappearing.

Once you start removing stuff and the members love it they demand more. Ok. I no longer have to obey my husband like he’s God. Now I want these garments gone too!

The Church could solve the problem by allowing any underwear as long as it's consecrated, like it does with olive oil. You bring your undies to the temple, they say some mumbo jumbo and stamp your garments with a good permanent ink. I would go with UV curable.

I have mixed feelings when I see or hear that the church has made or might make changes for the better. On one hand, no one should be told what underwear to wear and how to wear it. On the other hand, when the church softens and caves in certain areas, members soon forget about the past and think that the new way is how things have always been. Those who remind them of the old Mormonism are liars who are just trying to make the church look bad. When rules are softened, church members often have even less understanding and empathy for those who left the church to escape its control because they're not controlled in the same way and can't imagine that the church was ever like that.

Garments have ALWAYS been uncomfortable, itchy, caused infections, etc. If a church member went to their bishop a decade or two ago to complain of such things, they would most likely have been told to repent and keep wearing them or give up their temple recommend. That's the Mormonism that I know and left. I don't recognize this new "patty-cake, taffy-pulling" Mormonism.

Religious movements that last a century or more have to change due to cultural, political and social changes.

Tte ODS Church has decided they are going to be Christian’s and not Mormons. Ok. That means the Mormon stuff goes. It’s what Tge Community of Christ decided to do but they did it so quick they lost 1/3 of their church membership.

The LDS in Utah are taking it more slow. With most of society leaving Christianity and Protestant church’s collapsing the LDS want to be a Christian church. One of the ones that’s left fir people who want it.

It could be nothing more than the church has a current prophet who loves to change things. Russell M Nelson worked in an innovative profession. He’s a bit different than a church lifer like Hinckley or Monson. Russ is innovative and driven. COVID got in the way and slowed things down but Russ loves to toy with the temple. I hope he lasts another couple of years. I love all the crazy shit. Mormon is a victory for Satin was a jewel. He just threw previous prophets under the bus and says get ready! I’m changing things!

Maybe the old doc remembers seeing nurses try to care for patients with one piece garments. In order to listen to a chest or abdomen was to wrestle that stethoscope down the neck opening....and then there was trying to thread an IV tubing through all the right holes....and trying to help a person on a bedpan....all totally nuts... but Russell saw it. He had to have seen it.

Some patients insisted on having garments on always. The two piece garment was an improvement but still a barrier to doing advanced cardio life support. The underwear usually had to be cut off....and hey wait...does the diaper go under the garment (of course) or over the garment (well, technically....) Ick. Garments were always one big ICKY.

Someone in the church hierarchy finally publicly said garments were not necessary if a member were ill or hospitalized.
Thank God.

But there are pics of the old garments to show the newbies that the church made people wear crazy underwear and it wasn't pretty.
They were always dirty.

I agree and struggle with this. But I am also VERY supportive of any and all changes that the org makes to become less of a cult and more of a plain Jane Christian church.

Because THAT'S what really bothers me. Everyone has superstitions and biases and things that are based on flawed reasoning but give them comfort. What I didn't like about my experience with Mormonism is that once I was in high school, I started repeating the patterns of manipulation upon myself. I gaslighted myself. I struggled with cognitive dissonance. My high religiosity was a choice I made. I feel like I would have had better defenses, better ability to choose, and more flexibility if I hadn't been brainwashed.

Dictating what people wear under their clothes is repressive and controlling. You only expect the authority to do that if people are obeying you fully, without question. A bishop asking questions about underwear and setting standards for cleanliness and purity that hits at a person's self worth, is destructive and leaves people open to being preyed upon in other ways. So, I am all for anything to do with the garments to be loosened and changed.

As for people forgetting the changes... If it would have changed their minds, then it already would have. I remember I used to depend upon changes and acknowledge them but saw it as falling under the "continued revelation" umbrella, not realizing how that doesn't match up with the origin story of the church. It was a shelf item. They either want to look at their shelf or they don't, you know? I will continue to celebrate the victories that steadily turn the church into something that doesn't brainwash its members. Each loosening of the leash gets us there.

I'm glad there's at least one more of us whe takes pleasure in the self inflicted pain of the faithful. I thought I might be the only one.

I'd like to be the bigger person, but sometimes it's just too satisfying not to be.

Hahaha! A hearty fist bump for you!

I think it's totally unfair! I had a great figure in my 20s and 30s but covered myself in "modest" clothes that would cover my awful temple garments instead of wearing the cute sleeveless dresses and tank tops I longed to wear. Those darned garments peaked out from under my clothes making me look like a freak. Several times I was asked by nevermos if I was wearing a girdle because the garment lines would show through my bluejeans.

If I had to suffer as a TBM, then all TBMs have to suffer, dammit!

If they dump garments and approve coffee, next thing you know, they’ll hire janitors. Where will it end?!

It will end with rock-and-roll bands doing drum roles as the bishop ascends the dais and playing sacrament hymns while the priests prepare the wafers and cheap wine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2023 05:40PM by Lot's Wife.

Yes, but: the innovations will never filter down to Bishop Christensen in Panguitch. Ergo, lives will continue to be ruined the same as always. Or am I mistaken?

I had Mish comps who told of relatives who bathed half & half + also had sex with them on;

word was if conceived while wearing, the child was 'truly' BIC...

I bought that for a while, but 'the times they are a'changing...

Q1: Does ChurchCo make $ bc people buy & wear them?

Q2: How many members think wearing is a (necessary) part of living 'the gospel'?

Q1 - I’m sure they make some money, but it can’t amount to more than a few dozen million dollars.. For a church that reportedly takes in $7 billion a year in tithing, and makes billions more off investments, 20 or 30 million is lunch money.

I doubt that more than 2 million members are even eligible to wear garments, and some of them don’t bother.

As for Q2, wearing of garments is a TR question, so I would assume most TBM Mormons who have done their endowments know the church thinks it’s important. I would think a majority of the TBMs agree, but a significant minority do not..

The transition will be complete when they can just wear a piece of jewelry with a cross on it.

Maybe a choice of icons like a likeness of JS, BY, the SLC Temple, etc.

They could be worsen under the shirt/ blouse or over the clothing to broadcast their religious beliefs.

I still apologize to my adult daughters for wearing garments when they were babies. I would have nursed my infants much longer if I didn't have to deal with those awful things. I switched to formula too soon because of wet garments all the time. I was working and decent easy to use breast pumps weren't on the market yet.

At work I had soaking wet pads, wet garments, (because we were suppose to wear garments under the bra) soaking wet nursing bra and then a wet uniform. Then I would have to find some kind of jacket to cover the whole wet mess.

I wasn't the only new mom with this problem. The nursing garments were just a big wet joke. Just get rid of garments altogether.

As someone who is now/recently out of the cult, but has a few kids under the age of 30 who are still sort-of half-in/half-out, I can tell you unequivocally that the huge majority of younger folks under the age of 30 DO NOT wear their garments at all. They always have excuses for not wearing them, and act like it is no big deal to not wear them. I LOVE IT!!!
I laugh with my kids and let them know that no "active" person who grew up in the 60s, 70s, or 80s, would've been able to get away with that viewpoint.
So that is at least healthy from the point of view that younger members today are saying "stay away from my choices to wear garments or not".
I think that is a very good first step, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the church miraculously have a revelation that they don't "have to" wear garments all the time anymore. Otherwise, the church will have to find a way to deal with people saying "screw you" to your rules.
This way, the church will find a way to justify the fact that they can't control the younger people like they did my generation. And they will call it revelation.

I went on a swimming activity with another RM. He was the son of an active bishop. He invited two other gals from the singles ward. He had just met them on the previous Sunday. I'm a very shy person who takes time to warm up when getting to know others. He talked these gals into going to the river.

I had already planned to wear shorts and a muscle shirt~ no garments but I was unsure if I would be dressed appropriately. My buddy got me worried because Mormonism always makes one second guess his/her decisions.

He called before I drove over to meet up- Hey Messy. You better behave yourself, one is the daughter of a stake president and the other is the daughter of the stake patriarch. Both were RM's as well.

Both girls arrived in bikinis and swore like sailors.

We had a great time swimming.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2023 05:11PM by messygoop.

"My [redacted] needs to breathe"

Yikes, that's maybe not producing the image she was after.

Personally I found them comfortable in winter, not so much in summer/high humidity.

The younger members just aren't wearing garments. Those are the ones who haven't left. Since the church has old and out of touch leadership change is slow and is usually only enacted when there is a big crisis to motivate change.

Another example of church leadership trying to catch up with the membership. Garments were the first thing my convert (now inactive) DD ditched. She hated not being able to wear cute sleeveless tops and couldn't stand wearing them in the humid climate of where she lives. When lightening didn't strike, her RM husband followed her lead.

I live in the heart of Mormon Land Utah County, and I've noticed most Mormons under the age of 30 have ditched them.

I've wondered about that too. I read some vlogs and blogs written by Mormon parents under the age of 45. They spend most of their time in athleisure clothes and when they don't what they do wear wouldn't cover garments well. These are people who otherwise attempt to portray themselves as super-obedient Mormons.

But don't you miss the days of the crotchless long-john "ordinance garments" you had to wear if you were "endowed" and in the temple. I always wore briefs over them to hide the pubic area, which could be so visible at times. I had to wear them even while baptising the youth when they were doing that silly and culty"baptising the dead" ritual. Boy, that was a treat to get your outer clothing AND see-through wet underwear. That's when the briefs were totally necessary.

I mean, don't you miss that. Land o'Goshen! Them's were the days!

Back in the 70's, women's garment were flare-legged, one piece, nylon horrors. We were to wear our bras over them and tuck those flared-legs into panty hose. And trying to pee was a nightmare.

When I resigned, I went outside and burned each piece, one at a time. I felt like a burden was being lifted from my shoulders. A lot was purged from my soul that day.

Modified long johns really date the church.

I think they probably realize that religions that keep quaint dress practices from the time they were at a peak end up being small pockets of relics from the past.

As missionaries playing basketball on P-day, none of us wore them when we went to church to use the indoor court. To tell who was who, one team took of their shirts -skins. And before you all get too excited, the sisters never took off their shirts and the sisters were almost always on the same team.

Remember, playing any type of football (touch and flag) was too dangerous so the only approved mission sport was basketball. And then it happened. A bunch of missionaries got hurt over a week period. Broken noses, dislocated shoulders, cracked ribs and I think an elder broke his arm.

And not only was it discovered that these games went over a 2 hour suggestion for exercise, the Mission President learned that missionaries were not wearing their protective G-s nor praying before the games.

First, all team sports were cancelled but many elders went to an outdoor park anyways.

Finally, playing basketball was permitted, but everyone had to have a G check which was funny to watch some elder running around to pull back one's shorts to see your whitey-tighties. Of course, this led to a new game: One side was now the G's when playing ball. This did not go over well. Apparently someone was infuriated seeing elders play with their G-s exposed and it got reported.

New mission rule: Do not exercise with your garments exposed in public. We went the full circle because it was nonsense to begin with. There are many activities where one should never be wearing church garments.

Funny!