The New York Times has a big article on the new garment rollout

Free link:
https://archive.is/aa3oc

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has redesigned its temple garments, which are worn by faithful members under their clothes. The garments are effectively underwear that until recently, looked like white short-sleeve shirts and knee-length shorts. Now, the church has removed the sleeve on some designs, turning them into tank tops.

The church is releasing the tops to its more than 17 million members around the world in phases. Last October, it quietly announced that the new garments would first be available to members in “hot, humid” climates like those in Africa and Asia.
They aren’t sanctioned for wear in the United States yet, but that hasn’t stopped American influencers from sourcing them — and showing them off in recent videos online.

“I was like: I want them now. I will get them at all costs. I will fly to Japan if I need to,” said Andrea Fausett, a 31-year-old influencer based in Hawaii. She secured a few tops from a friend in Asia. Other women told The New York Times that they had asked friends or family in Thailand and the Philippines to mail them.

Kim Austin, a 33-year-old consultant living in Provo, Utah, said that she wore the new garments under a sleeveless dress to church, and that women in her congregation asked how they could get them. “Utah women will stop at nothing,” she said. Alyssa and McKenna Banks, sisters who run master classes for styling modest outfits (advertised as “garment girlies — but make it vogue”), said their clients were dying to get them.
This seemingly small shift is a big deal within the faith. The tank tops contain multitudes: They are a relief for many faithful members who have been hoping for a change for years. They are a source of frustration for many former members who wish they could have come sooner. But above all, they are a tangible reflection of the ways the church’s public perception is shifting. While the church was once known for its pioneers and polygamists, it’s becoming better known for viral influencers — some of whom are bending or ignoring modesty mandates.

Did the article mention where the 'garments' are manufactured?

Did the article mention that ChurchCo fired 'nonmember' workers in the U.S. and later moved all (?) manufacturing to Asia?


ChurchCo went to court (USSC) to defend a complaint of religious discrimination, but prevailed saying they needed ('worthy') members to sew the garments... This was a long time ago, but still a valid example of their ruthlessness in dealing with ppl.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2025 02:28PM by GNPE.

Sleeveless makes sense. I've said for a long time: They should have a silk fabric option. It's cool in the summer, warm in the winter, and fire-resistant.

Yes that would make more sense, but still in hot weather, they're making women have to wear 3 layers of clothing. Plenty of times women go to just a tank top, but good Mormon girls are encouraged to do all 3, even if it's 120 degrees. Blah!

They are missing the big story (unless I missed something). The big story is the horrors inflicted on women (and girls) in the name of garment readiness. Terrible, terrible shaming and humiliation and ostracism from "leaders" AT ALL LEVELS for those females who failed to conform. And then there is the double standard depending on your social status.

The mainstream press continues to show that it just doesn't "get it" when it comes to religion. it sees religion as an inexorably progressive social positive. The press just cannot see any other way to interpret religion. That's my take.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2025 11:00AM by slskipper.

Agreed. Garments are a symptom, not the disease.

The disease is the authority structure, the church's self-arrogated power to tell people how to behave, a power that it exercises over women all the damn time.

Making marginal changes in the garment is an attempt to redirect attention away from the rotten root structure of the church by telling everyone it has trimmed the leaves.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The disease is the authority structure, the
> church's self-arrogated power to tell people how
> to behave, a power that it exercises over women
> all the damn time.
>
> Making marginal changes in the garment is an
> attempt to redirect attention away from the rotten
> root structure of the church by telling everyone
> it has trimmed the leaves.

It was so sad seeing these women yearning so deeply to be normal and celebrating a rare chance to be normal. But they can't see it's their absurd and tyrannical religion that makes them so abnormal.

If they just tried ditching the garmies in July for the whole month, I don't think they'd ever go back.

The cult has approved yet another change to garments. This is NYT news? Then again, when God changes his mind I guess it is a big deal.

Now wait just a gol’ dern minute! I was under the impression that bare shoulders caused men to have ‘impure thoughts.’ So now they don’t? Hmph!

But seriously, I’m glad women can now be free of such constraints and shaming. Now all they need are crop top garmies to show of their navel piercings and tattoos :)

TG

I know, right?

If it is sleeveless, someone might get a glimpse of side boob, or even underarm hair. Scandal!

My grandma had to wear the garms that went down to her ankles and wrists with ties.

It's so unfair when God changes the rules, and you were the one actually following the rules.

I think FLDS still wear the garments that go to the ankles and wrists, thus their dresses. My mom said that when she first went to the temple, the garments they had you wear inside the temple were the wrist/ankle length ones. ‘God’ sure has a way of bending with societal pressure…..

TG

Tahoe Girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
My mom said that when she first went to the temple, the
> garments they had you wear inside the temple were
> the wrist/ankle length ones. ‘God’ sure has a
> way of bending with societal pressure…..
>
> TG


Isn't there a softer, more palatable phrase, kinder than saying 'bending'?

One second thought, Never Mind.

Lol! I guess you could say giving in to societal pressure, which we know they’ve been doing since at least 1978 when ‘God’ changed his mind about black people…

TG

So ‘porn shoulders’ are now a thing of the past ….

Exactly!

TG

I was once agast when a dorm-mate of mine @ Ricks went outside to do a 'quick errand' without anything else on.... WOW!


? 3 layers?? I guess that means garments, a bra, and a top (used to be called a blouse???)

I recall that my now former DW used to lament if not complain about g's, pantyhose, & a dress or skirt being expected, if not mandatory.

I agree with LW, the bells & whistles of Mormonism have long lost their appeal to 'commoners', but they're an aspect of male domination rooted back to who-knows-when.

Now, that's next?

They previously watered down Honesty, which was once an air-tight requirement for a TR;

Another poster did the trial balloon of (limited) approval of beer (would spirits be far behind?)

Others have commented regarding a further revision of the meeting schedule - duration, but ? nothing solid yet....

We know tithing is off the table, that sorta limits the possibilities, 'eh?


With that darned new-fangled cosmic internet thingee, word of surveys & area-limited trials travels very fast, so that doesn't seem as attractive as it might have been previously.

Back to the drawing board for new innovations!

> . . . Honesty. . . was once an air-tight requirement for a TR. . .

It was never an "air-tight requirement." An apparently earnest lie was readily accepted as well.

This was over 30 years ago. All endowed members were told to stay after sacrament meeting for a message from the stake president who was to speak to us. He blasted members for tucking in their garments so they could wear shorts or sleeveless shirts or blouses. Apparently a woman went to her temple recommend interview wearing shorts and that set him off.

This may be stolen from someone, but I like it:

Mormonism is based on events that never occurred and the rest is made up.

The only requirement is to make them faith promoting. Facts optional.

As an exmo naturist, I never have this problem!

Less is more of the same.