Why was wearing your garments for the first time ever talked about in General Conference? The church leadership are losing control over the younger members. The young ladies value fashion over some old, dated church tradition. They are looking nice and not wearing their garments. Also the Utah Mormons are very wild sexually. Always have been but it’s becoming less shunned in the Mormon community.

The younger Mormons just see the leadership as old, they will die soon, what you say really doesn’t matter. There is also something I have noticed. These liberal Mormons like each other. They don’t necessarily want to leave the church. They want to reform the church. When the church reversed refusing baptism to children of gay parents because so many members were upset this sends a message to the younger members they have influence.

They know the church has more than $160 billion. It’s not going away anytime soon but they also know the current leaders won’t live much longer and more of the newer leadership are from foreign countries and are more liberal than Dust Rusty and Hoax. We will just ignore these guys and keep doing what we are doing. The church needs us more than we need them.

So yeah they can look like fools demanding garment obedience in a public setting but nobody is listening. You are still going to see the beautiful shoulders of lovely LDS women who value fashion more than Brigham Young’s chastity underwear.

I think more parents are permissive than previous generations. Current church leaders loathe this. I'm sure that they would love to call the lazy parenting out at GC, but the push back would be swift and severe.

Today, there is less shame if one's missionary son or daughter can not complete a church mission. My mom has mellowed because she now denies that it would have been a problem had I been sent home early. She conveniently forgets the talks about "If you embarrass me as a missionary I will never speak to you again and you will not live in my home if you come home early."

Exactly. I think Oaks has taken control. Eyring looks like he has one foot in the grave. Oaks gave the talk on garments. President Nelson looked like some younger body double. That was comical. The red chair behind him was a green screen. They had so many electronic filters on him it was painfully obvious. Was he even speaking or was it AI?

It was the weirdest conference ever.

When the church allows a transgender baptism that just sends a message of the leadership will eventually buckle to public demand. Just because some old fuddy duddies bark to wear your garments, doesn’t mean most people are going to listen to them.

Boyd K Packer is dead. He is now rolling in his grave.

That mention of using AI for video conference is a great point. I had not considered this in the contextp. There have been demonstrations that with 15 seconds of voice and a photo, you can use AI to create a video of someone saying anything you want that is indiscernible from the actual person. This full capability is not out in the wild yet. But, with what we can access, cleaning up a complete video would be simple.

I am a professor, and I keep up with AI. I require my students to learn how to use AI competently, critically, and ethically in completing their assignments - just as they’ll need to be able to do in the workforce.

TSCC could do a lot of mischief with AI.

(Grammarly, which is immmeded in my web browser, was used to check grammar in this post

It seems like AI and church talks would be a good match.

All most speakers do is scrounge through old talks and find a scripture somewhat on the same topic. Then they produce a word salad on a worn topic with nothing ground breaking. That sounds like a fit for AI.

>>I think more parents are permissive than previous generations.

I think you are right. For example, people have seen parents shun and condemn their gay children to the point it destroys the relationships of the family.

More parents are probably deciding they would rather have their family together on good terms instead of letting the church ruin it. They have seen enough examples and read enough stories to see how the church has divided families over stupid things like garments.

"Also the Utah Mormons are very wild sexually."

This may be because of sexual repression, but since 90% of a relationship is sharing the same whacked out delusions, Mormons share a common foundation.

That’s part of it. The other is rebellion. We actually knew couples in Draper who would attend the temple together and then have a swinging party after. We got invited but it wasn’t our thing. It was young couples doing real well working for family businesses but they felt trapped in the church because leaving would hurt their career. So the wild sexual escapes were a form of therapy and rebellion. Then you have the kids at BYU who want to sow some oats before they settle down.

I could hear the lyrics of this George Harrison song being played in my brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seqaTuXkqFI

Each one of those old coots is thinking about themselves and their righteous family members and the MONEY their family will have.

Where will the next load of money will come from?

The tithe paying garment wearing suckers in the audience.

BJ the Lamanite explains it very well.



https://www.tiktok.com/@bj_the_lamanite/video/7357399196984495403?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7289411699747751467

Talking about the temple outside the temple? What happened to Fight Club rules?

They actually talked about temple garments at GC. That is desperate. I guess China-made garments aren't as sacred.

A lot of the older members found it strange. Some saw it as tacky. General Conference is not where you discuss underwear. Anyways no good will come from it. It just confirms the church is still a crazy cult.

2 talks were devoted to how to wear underwear. Yes, I found it strange too.

They used to announce a special stake meeting to address temple stuff. They USED to considered it improper to discuss sacred but now they have lost control over its members. Imagine members rejecting wearing undergarments which are uncomfortable, unflattering and out of date.

I have shared my experience as a young man doing yard work at a member's house and having another member call me out for not wearing temple garments. She was watching me using a hand edger while kneeling. My shorts were revealing my thighs and this busy body neighbor (who was obviously a member) walk over and give me a tongue lashing. I was speechless, but it was a hell of wake up of what was awaiting me.

The sister, who I was doing the yard work, heard the commotion of her neighbor and came outside. She put her busybody neighbor in her place by telling her that I had yet to attend the temple. The ward was well aware that I was preparing to go on a mission.

Pretty much sums up most of my Mormon life; other people interloping and having leaders personally judge my actions in front of others. Mormonism was (possibly still is) a religion where members are encouraged to pass judgement on each other.

>>They used to announce a special stake meeting to address temple stuff. They USED to considered it improper to discuss sacred...

Yes, I think that is important to mention. It used to be specially for adults (temple goers mostly) with stake leaders so they could discuss temple related issues with the appropriate audiences and environment. So now they put it on TV with kids and snickering nonmembers watching while everyone is cringing?

They are the ones making temples and garments common "to do" topics to nag everyone about obeying. It takes away the aura of sacred activities and tokens for the higher level initiates. Now even more people are rolling their eyes about their silly underwear obedience rules.

>They used to announce a special stake meeting to address temple stuff.

Excellent point. People knew about TGs in the past, and had some vague (probably very vague unless the person had had their endowments) idea of what was in the endowment ceremony. Then Deborah Laake's book Secret Ceremonies came out in 1993 (not positive on year) which gave the first blow by blow description of the endowment in the popular press. In the following ten years, other descriptions showed up on the internet, and the cat was out of the bag.

Last week the SLTrib ran a photo of temple garments as part of their story about the GC talks on the subject. I bet they got complaints about doing that, but they obviously felt they could live with the blowback. Thirty years ago they would not have dared run a photo like that.

Talking about garments in GC does give the demand that garments be worn "as instructed" some teeth, as in "we really mean it." However, putting it in a forum open to the general public does make Mormons look kind of weird. They decided clamping down on the members was more important than avoiding looking weird.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2024 11:27AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Yes. The first thing people usually ask me about when they find out I was a Mormon is about the goofy undies.

I remember in Alabama sitting in a meeting at work. Attending the meeting was a visiting inspector or instructor (I don't remember exactly what the meeting was about now) from Utah.

My boss leaned over to me and whispered, "Is he wearing them?" I could see the smiley line under his tie. I nodded yes. Later there was loud laughter when he left after I explained.

People are very curious about the undies. Maybe the church is purposely trying to make them less mysterious by trying to make them into some kind of common religious garb like other religions have.

We all know that the church encourages (if not mandates) any young person attending college to attend one once a week or twice a week religion class. The uptick to attending a church religion class was that it cost 10 or 15 dollar fee which allowed you to park on church property (parking lot) instead of buying a college parking permit which cost over 100 or more. I attended the church institute before and after my mission (when you had to be 19 as a male).

One activity that they planned for young adults was a September swimming party (if the Sacramento area weather was hot after Labor Day). The institute rented a local swimming pool during the week and they planned a swimming and small hamburger/hot dog BBQ. Maybe not the greatest activity, but it was something a bit different. I was unable to attend because I had college classes 5 days a week (it happens when your a freshman and you register last).

When I returned to college after serving a mission, I remembered the institute's swimming party. Now I had my college schedule planned better so I wasn't driving 5 days a week. I asked the institute director about the swimming party and he told me that church leaders had cancelled it the year before.

I asked why it had been cancelled. It had NOTHING to do about liability and or people getting hurt/drowning. It was about the wearing of church garments. Apparently, the regional leadership felt that swimming activities encouraged young people to trek around ALL DAY wearing bathing suits or swim wear which was completely inappropriate. The church also deemed the restrooms at various swimming pools insufficient for young men and young women to properly change in and out of their garments.

Moreover, the institute director (who routinely made comments which suggested that he was experiencing a faith crisis- I suspected that he might have contemplating leaving the church when the church disciplined the September Six) confided in his office that part of his duty was to report student members who might not be wearing their church garments while hanging out or attending institute classes. The church supplied him a list of endowed students. He had to turn in a checklist each month to stake presidents. And this was 30 years ago!

Oh my word! Talk about the church shooting itself in the foot. A swimming party and BBQ sounds like a perfectly innocent and fun activity. I would have loved that when I was in college. It would have been a great way for Institute students to meet each other, make friends, and perhaps find dates in a relaxed environment.

messygoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Moreover, the institute director (who routinely
> made comments which suggested that he was
> experiencing a faith crisis- I suspected that he
> might have contemplating leaving the church when
> the church disciplined the September Six)

He would walk around and call us brother/sister and our first name. Hence, I was Brother Messy.

He went around the institute class asking everyone (pretending to be a church leader/bishop) "We're having a service project on Saturday and need you to attend. Will you attend ______?"

Without fail, every single student in the class gave the resounding "yes or of course." He finally asked me and I told him "No". Several gasped.

The director paused. He made a face and returned to where I was sitting. He got real close to me. "Why not Brother Messy?"

-Because I already have plans. I won't show up. Maybe next time

And that led to an interesting discussion about how church leaders can place undue pressure upon members. And is it okay to say no when asked.

And several snotty young women told me that I should have said yes and that I needed to repent.

At the end of a church sanctioned lesson, who else would teach that Brother Messy was correct for saying No to the church when he is unable to keep an obligation.

There were other lessons about being faithful to the gospel vs faithful to the church, etc.

I think he knew too much of church history, lies and possible corruption within the church. I think the director had lost his testimony but had to stay quiet to keep his job and pension.

>> And several snotty young women told me that I should have said yes and that I needed to repent.

On a bright note, you knew who *not* to date.

  
    

Boredom is a mine-field where many testimonkies have perished.

Oh come on, what Gen Z kid wouldn't fawn over out-of-touch fossils?