Better styles and fabrics aren’t enough. Let’s end the garment-wearing mandate.
The New York Times recently featured an article about Mormon women’s garments, featuring interviews with brave and smart Latter-day Saint women. If you haven’t read it yet, you should.
But the New York Times got one thing wrong; it described the requirement for most adult members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) to wear garments as an “exhortation.” The garment wearing rule is actually a strictly enforced mandate, with frequent compliance checks and devastating consequences for people who disobey.
Image by Church Newsroom. See https://youtu.be/SkTz_NQqKA8
Beginning with her first time attending the LDS temple endowment ceremony, each Latter-day Saint woman (and man) must meet one-on-one with a male (never female) interviewer at least once every other year. The male interviewer reads a 2-paragraph statement about garment-wearing rules and asks the woman if she is in compliance. (You heard that right. A male church leader asks each adult woman in his congregation, one by one, what underwear she wears.) If she skips the interview or admits that she is not in compliance, she is denied access to LDS temples. She may not participate in sacred rites that are deemed necessary for salvation within Mormon theology. She is banned from the temple weddings of her friends and family.
To the 600+ New York Times commenters who are wondering why Mormon women would wear garments day and night even if the practice is too unhealthy and uncomfortable to feel spiritually enriching: that’s why.
Many of the women interviewed by the New York Times are advocating better garment styles and fabrics. I’ve done that myself many times, such as here and here and here.
Church officials have been responsive. Many of the garment changes advocated by me and other Latter-day Saint women have been implemented. The woman’s garment of today is a thousand times better then what they made our grandmothers wear.
And yet, it is still terrible.
I don’t believe that the brethren who lead our church want women to endure garment-induced urinary tract infections, yeast infections, heat strokes and hot flashes; or that they want pregnancy, lactation and menopause to be even more uncomfortable for women than they already are naturally; or that they like the idea of women bleeding all over their garments when they menstruate. It’s not that male church leaders don’t care about female comfort and hygiene, it’s just that church officials have other priorities for the garment that they care about more. It’s more important to the brethren that the garment cover a woman’s legs than that a woman can attach a menstrual pad to her underwear. If making great women’s underwear was actually the primary goal of Church garment designers, Latter-day Saint women wouldn’t still be coping with underpants that cannot accommodate a winged menstrual pad more than half a century after the menstrual belt disappeared from the market.
Garments will never be great women’s underwear.
The 24/7 garment-wearing mandate began at a time when long underwear was in fashion and church members were gathering together to live in a low-humidity location. As talented and well-intended as Church garment designers are, they will never find a style or fabric that works for every person in every climate across the world to wear every day and every night in any weather under every appropriate outerwear on every body with every health condition. They certainly can’t pull it off while adhering to the modesty preferences of church officials.
So here is what I propose: let’s stop requiring women (and men) to wear garments as daily underwear.
In 2019, the LDS Church made some steps in the right direction. They eliminated the phrase “wear the garment day and night” from the temple interview and a rule about wearing garments even while doing activities like yard work. That wording was particularly overreaching. (You have to wear our mandated long underwear even when you are alone on your own property doing messy chores in the hot sun! You have to wear it even when you are asleep in your own bed!)
Let’s take it a step further. Let’s cut the question from the interview altogether. Let church members decide for themselves when and where they will wear the garment, without threat of punishment. Those who find it spiritually enriching to wear the garment as underwear all day every day may continue to do so. Others may find it more conducive to their health, climate or culture to only wear the garment at church or the temple. Let them be.
Frustrated by itchy, constrictive church-designed garments, they are asking for better fit, more options and “buttery soft fabric.”
Ruth Graham, New York Times, July 21, 2021
Amen! If we really believe in free agency, let us decide for ourselves something as intensely personal as what underwear we choose while menstruating, breastfeeding or on our honeymoon.
Protip: we don’t really believe in free agency.
Agency isn’t free. There are consequences (good or bad) to every choice we make. However, I do believe we should be able to use our agency to choose our underwear.
Why would we wear something unpleasant? Same reason teens married middle aged married men. Salvation is at stake. Belonging in the community. Reputation and social capital. Acting like it’s a personal choice ignores the enormous and intrusive external pressure. I didn’t even realize that part of the interview changed because I haven’t gotten a recommend in so long.
If my sons want to marry in the temple I’ll get my garment act together to go – it is my only interview failure. Otherwise I’m fine with wearing mine when I feel prompted to by the Spirit, often on Sundays. My son’s happiness on their wedding day is literally the only reason I can think of that I would be willing to talk to a random dude about my underwear. It shouldn’t be a thing at all, but it is so that’s my line in the sand.
Spot on. I wish all the NYT commenters would read this, as you so perfectly explain the why. “Let them govern themselves.”
Read the NYT article and April’s especially!
Even and perhaps especially men should learn from, and would benefit from this too, such as I have.
When I was recently injured, and in a manner sufficient to cause blood to stain my lower garment noticeably, my instinct was to use hydrogen peroxide on the blood-stained areas, wait an hour or so, then repeat the process a second time to ensure the peroxide got in nice and well soaked into the fabric. Having been a medic, my instincts told me to go in this direction.
My wonderful wife told me up and down that my lower garment was going to be permanently stained. I assured her the stain — because of the peroxide — would come 100% completely out, when laundered with the 100% Oxy-Clean we use, as bleach is NOT an option on the stretch cotton pairs that I wear.
Well… they went in the washer, the dryer, and YES, there were NO TRACES of any blood whatsoever!!
So…whether an injury that leads to bleeding or other reasons of bleeding — male or female — peroxide is heartily recommended for purging blood stains from garments, as I wish every sister the best in these issues being addressed in a positive, forward, manner. ***
Tim, there is not a woman alive who doesn’t have her own excellent process for getting blood out of fabric. Your suggestion is, frankly, an excellent example of the term “mansplaining.”
Libby: Here’s the deal: I make it a point to learn something new EVERY day, and my experience with peroxide was the VERY FIRST one in my situation.
Yet you use the Abusive, sexist, bigoted term ‘mansplaining’ against ME. This is not supposed to be an endless gender war, nor what I am seeing as you airing your grievances against me.
Women get enough of the short end of the deal overall.
You do not help your causes any or that of other decent, good, and other honest and honorable women, when you UNJUSTIFIABLY attack and abuse men without cause, especially when they seek a better understanding of the struggles you endure.
That’s called empathy, and is an admirable trait in anyone.
If I wanted that kind of abuse, I’d have stayed with that abusive ex who when we split, was placed under a no-contact order.
To this day, I pray the peace she so desperately needs will descend on her as the dews from Heaven, and that she’ll claim for herself ALL the blessings the Atonement has to offer.
Your candor is noted.
Imagine thinking women don’t know how to get blood out of underwear
@heidi:
..I’m sorry if this may come off a lil gruff, but..
Not every woman ‘knows’ this trick. In fact, in my 38yrs of life, I’ve only known TWO, that did:
My Grandmother, &, my bff’s mother BJ. (Both of which, have some medical knowledge or training).
In fact, to help ‘hit closer to home’, on this, ‘I’ had to teach MY Wife, this trick.
I had to “teach” many other “non-medically trained” people (ie: both sexes) that “Peroxide can help remove most protein-based stains (ie: grass, blood, grease, etc etc).
(A trick I learned IN my pursuits of medical knowledge, from my brother Mouse, btw..)
Secondly-
You read above, Tim had to ‘correct’ HIS wife (whom acted a ‘Doubting Thomas’..) on the same thing!!
..So.. No. Not “every woman” knows this trick. 😉
For what it’s worth, I do not think this is mansplaining. To me, Tim is simply offering up his experience with removing blood from fabric. Not every woman is aware of this technique. I am a 64 year old woman who has experienced blood on my garments (as most of us have) and I have never heard of this solution.
Why are you telling women things they already know like it’s a revelation from on high? It’s not.
Truly a man telling women how to deal with their menstrual blood stains is the height of mansplaining.
Introsinbowz:
I just shared something I newly learned to better understand some of the crap the sisters have to deal with, only to learn I am dealing with A COUPLE of angry members of a man-hating mob, who think NO MAN can learn new skills, can do no right, that they are NEVER WRONG, and fox kicks, giggles and spite, walk across the water FEET DRY.
They must either be ‘acting’ [slur removed by moderator], or have the misfortune of living in [slur removed by moderator] Nation, or worse, the Midwest.
I say the last part based on sad experience, based on living — and thankfully ESCAPING one ‘Great Satan’ — at 2 in the morning in a blinding snowstorm because of the spiritual terrorist and predatory animal he was!!!
Your flagrant man-hating abuse is noted, and reported for cause, especially as none of my remarks are nowhere in the range for such!!!
Tim…. Unbelievable. You are not the victim of a “man-hating mob”. You are not being “attacked” or “abused”. You are simply being corrected and called out for your comment. You are demonstrating that you can’t tolerate women correcting you. Perhaps you should take your time and comments elsewhere if any negative feedback is too much of a hit to your ego.
/mod/ Tim, you are in violation of Rule 3 of our commenting guidelines. If you continue to violate our guidelines, you will be placed in permanent moderation. https://www.the-exponent.com/site-map/comment-policy/
Humble much? 😉
PS:
See my reply above, to Heidi. xD (I tried to post it last night, but had issues, then needed to sleep, for 0900 Church..)
@SC
..Part of that “abuse” Tim was referring to, was his ex-wife. 😉
*is baffled by the lack of humility women ‘of the Church’ have here..*
/mod/ Kichiyou, you are in violation of Rule 4 of our commenting guidelines. If you continue to violate our guidelines, you will be placed in permanent moderation. https://www.the-exponent.com/site-map/comment-policy/
I’ll ignore the ‘mansplaining’ insult/slur — and that is EXACTLY what it was.
This was a new experience for me; as I strive to learn something new every day, having taught high school.
Kudos and many ‘thank yous’ to KC for having my back on this.
I completely agree that the Church should do this.
I also wish that women would realize they can do this whether or not the Church gives them permission.
“Throughout your life” could mean just in the temple or just in church or every Easter or whatever. So wear it when you feel like it and call it good.
Alternatively, we can decide we’ll no longer be bullied by temple recommend requirements and say no thanks to the recommend.
I know that’s easier said than done but the deeper issue here is the control that women allow a bunch of men to exercise in their lives. I want the men to do better – really I do – but that will only ever be a partial solution. I want the women to realize they are their own authority. If more of us do that and do it openly we will give permission to others even if we face some consequences in our church community.
Well stated, Elisa. Step forward and take ownership of one’s own life. I don’t think there is much value in living a “compliant “ life that one resents.
Great points, Elisa.
I’ve been increasingly sad that it *isn’t* actually possible—at least as a parent, or at least for me as a parent—to take the helpful and leave the damaging stuff behind. I have so many reasons the temple recommend itself and the interview feel unacceptably harmful. If I didn’t have children, I’d just stop complying with this protocol and take the sad consequences. But what about when my children want to do baptisms in the temple? I don’t want to leave them to experience baptisms the way their youth leaders run things, and I of course desire to be with them for those meaningful rituals. So…what are my options? I want to tell men to stop asking me about underwear and virtue without having to talk to them even more about underwear and virtue. I want to be with my children in the temple without complying with a harmful practice that all women need women to stop complying with. But what options do I even have? And what about when I don’t want my children to be questioned about chastity by grown men? There’s no way to avoid this harmful thing without creating yet another harmful thing for my innocent child—stigma from their leaders and peers, or being denied access to a holy place they long to be. It feels it’s a harm/harm situation no matter what you do, simply because some elements are meaningful and the framework is so impossibly rigid. I’ve been searching for a solution for years and can’t find a way to not harm my kids or find peace myself.
Yep. Although I’ve come to the conclusion that the best thing I can do for my kids is to teach them that they are in charge of themselves and they are their own authority. And the only way I can teach them that is to model that for them, including modeling what it’s like to participate in a rigid spiritual community on my own terms. And yes, that means some social stigma and missing out on certain things. That is true of many decisions in life.
One upside of the new recommend questions and rules, is women and youth can bring in a designated adult of their choice.
My personal opinion is that if sisters have a good RS President who isn’t the Bishop’s lackey, bring the RSP or another trusted friend with a good backbone who’s good at keeping their mouth shut, and who won’t be bullied, as I’ve had my share of corrupt religionists masquerading as ‘priesthood leaders’, as sadly, men and women alike suffer from thugs in suits.
@Tim:
The irony- I was just discussing this with my wife, prior her showing me this post! lol
PS:
For the Sisters:
She was actually quite peeved by ya’lls lack of humility, as well as the many ‘flaws’ of the article itself.
..& for the record – She’s a new convert, with our Endowment & Sealing being less than 2yo, so..
Absolutely!
Garment wearing is definitely not optional. I stopped believing that Jesus cares about garments/underwear 10 years ago. This was after pro-longed postpartum bleeding and a case of unresolved thrush while breastfeeding. I now wear them only when I worship in the temple. I’ve prayed about it, and that’s what feels true for me.
l spoke to my bishop about this 10 years ago and he told me he would leave any specifics of my garment-wearing up to me. I wish this was the church’s position on my underwear selection. (This was in a relatively liberal DC area ward, I realize this generosity is not typical.)
This former-bishop’s response infuriates my family, especially my mom and sister. They love to talk about how much this “worries” them. They say that the bishop had no right to give me ‘permission’ to only wear them in the temple. They say that he overstepped his authority. They insist I bring it up every time I have an interview, to see if it’s STILL OK.
I feel like it’s none of these mens’ business and if I feel good with God, that should be enough.
Liar.
“Official Temple Recommend question”:
“Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?”
If THIS is an “intrusive” question.. than Idk what is.. 😉
Also..
The “Official Guidelines” on the “Garment Wearing”:
Wearing the Temple Garment
The temple garment is a reminder of covenants made in the temple and, when worn properly throughout life, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil. The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.
It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.
PS:
Also of note – MEN are required to wear said garments, just as strongly as ya’ll women are. (..You made it sound as if we were exempt..)
Secondly, “wearing Panties” (that ARE NOT a thong or the like), is actually HELPFUL in fighting infections.. (Says several MD articles, & Fashion magazines)
Provided they’re changed regularly. 😉
Kichiyou,
It is completely unnecessary to copy and paste the garment question and rules here because I linked to the actual text from the official Church website in the Original Post. Your failure to read the OP does not make me a liar, and calling me one puts you in violation of Rules 3 and 4 of our commenting guidelines: https://www.the-exponent.com/site-map/comment-policy/ This is your second violation of this policy, so I will be placing you in permanent moderation status.
Yes, in my opinion, it is intrusive for a man (who is not the woman’s health professional or intimate partner) to ask a woman what kind of underwear she wears, no matter how the question is worded.
As I stated in the OP, this policy applies to both men and women. (Again, it is always wise to read the OP before writing a rebuttal.)
However, the focus of this OP is on women because this site is about women and because the policy disparately affects women. The garment is similar to male underwear, so wearing it as underwear may be less difficult for men than it is for women. Men are interviewed about their underwear by others of their same sex. The garment is not at all similar to female underwear and women are interviewed about their compliance by people of the opposite sex who usually have very little knowledge about gynocology.
I don’t think anyone here is unaware that men wear garments. Massive difference is that women’s garments are NOTHING LIKE ordinary women’s underwear. I do not know a single woman outside of garment-wearing who wears underwear down to her knees (past the knees for shorties like me) or who wear undershirts with sleeves (unlike men women often don’t wear undershirts at all – it’s a lot of layers with a bra). Whereas a lot of men wear boxer- briefs that are longer + undershirts on a regular basis. I’ve not heard men complain of health problems related to garment-wearing but I welcome that commentary.
I don’t think men or woman should be required to wear specific underwear or asked about it by religious leaders. But I think unquestionably the garment disproportionately negatively impacts women than men because of the many health issues detailed and because they are extremely different from what typical underwear would be for women.
Kichiyou: You ‘rang the bell’ on that with your last answer, and I applaud April for placing you in permanent moderation.
Name calling is always out of line. I got called for it, for which I apologize. It’s just not acceptable; male or female, especially when we’re supposed to be getting along better with each other. ***
Name calling is out of line yet you purposely changed my user name to change it to an insult.
How does that work?
Men have medical issues as well that prevent wearing either the top and/or bottom portion. Allowing men and women the option to use marks only within their everyday wear would helpful.
Thanks! :*
I was gonna suggest the same idea, albeit broader in details:
Create our own, with the symbols etched in the appropriate places.
Then, as we created them, keep in mind 4 things:
1. Any colour may do, but the “white” is symbolic of “keeping our Souls free from the stains of Sin.”
2. The attire ought to remind one of “modesty” & “chastity”.
3. Whatsoever is ‘covered’ by the “holy cloth”, is WHERE you’ll be physically protected by God. (as par the Covenants we have made.)
Ie: it IS, in the litteral sense, “The Armour of God”.
4. The Symbols themselves, are to remind us of three things:
A. our Covenants made TO God.
B. God’s Covenants to Us.
C. Christ AT the time of the 2nd Coming. (especially this part. 😉 ^_^ )
PS:
Tbh, my only real gripe w/ the Garments, is this – They’re not long enough! (or, at least the stretchy kind we have, aren’t..)
(This would help those w/ sensitive skin, as well as tattoos & the like. For me, I have neither, but I’ve been preferring “long Sleeves & a Kilt”, because of the protection they provide me, both at work (I’m “Property Maintenance”) & ‘in life itself”)
Thank you for this.
Shortly after I went through the templet, I started having real problems with one of the garment fabrics – it created a burning sensation where you don’t want to burn, plus there were bad odors. I ditched everything made in that fabric, switched to another type altogether about which I’d heard good things, and that seemed to work. But then recently I started having issues with seams rubbing – you know where – and causing real irritation (physical, although the other kind was in play too!), to the point of incipient sores, so one night I just yanked them off and went without. Huge relief. For the next several weeks I wore normal underwear, again a huge relief, although I did wonder: if I’m not wearing the bottoms, should I be wearing the tops? The point here is, although I don’t believe I have particularly sensitive skin, sometimes I just can’t do it. I’m willing to wear them. I believe they’re part of a commitment I made (nobody has to agree with me there, it’s just how I feel). But as I said, sometimes I can’t. So amen to the OP: let us decide when and where.
One thing I find very frustrating is that despite what the temple interview say, we don’t actually covenant to wear the garment. We are instructed to wear the garment. This changes the entire conversation for me. Also, I’ve developed a personal policy that I only respond to temple interview questions with yes/no and refuse to go into any detail or deviate from the proscribed questions. How I interpret the questions is between me and the Lord and everyone else needs to butt out.
I agree that women should evaluate their own garment-wearing introspectively, making it a matter of prayer, and at the interview, say only “yes,” or “no.” Nothing else. I have heard from too many women who over-disclosed details about their personal underwear choices and gynecology to male interviewers. At best, this discussion is embarrassing and inappropriate. At worst, it can result in losing your temple recommend because your local male priesthood leader does not understand your gynecological needs and expects you to adhere to his own unrealistic expectations.
Of course, I believe the Church should drop the question altogether and prevent this frequently recurring problem from happening, but this is one work-around that women can employ now to protect ourselves in the meantime.
BRAVO, Charlotte! Excellent point that applies equally both to men and women equally. It is — and remains — a matter between the endowed member and the Lord.
I even remember from the recommend interview book where it says, and I paraphrase here, where leaders are specifically told not to deviate in the slightest from the worded questions in ANY manner when interviewing members for Temple Recommends.
I had to verbally slap down a counselor a few times during one of those — in the same interview — and remind him that he was (a), WAY out of bounds with his line of unauthorized questioning; (b), was no longer a bishop, and hadn’t been one for years; and (c), was going to have his conduct documented and reported IN WRITING for cause.
He was released — FOR CAUSE — not too long afterwards, on the grounds members should feel uplifted after a recommend interview; not like they’ve gone 12 rounds with Mike Tyson.
As I’ve said before: Sisters, especially with children at home: The best ‘Bishop’s Interviews’ are the ones where (if those Interviews involve the kidlets), one or both parents should accompany the child. If the bishop objects, reschedule, and PLEASE make sure the stake president in the room.
If it’s with you and the bishop, bring in a trusted adult friend, as it blesses, benefits, and protects one and all.
Have a great week! ☘️
This article is extremely ignorant and ridiculous, April. Calling it a “garment mandate” and “underwear” shows you don’t understand the sacred nature of the garment and this is frankly insulting to the sacred covenants that you made in the temple. I live in Florida with extreme heat and humidity and I have zero problems keeping the covenants I made. For those talking about being in the military or being able to wear a pad with them, take a look at the Church Handbook, it lines that out very clearly to accommodate all those situations. It’s sad to see how many people take something so sacred and turn it into something so careless like this.
Church Handbook policy 38.5.5: Wearing and Caring for the Garment, is available here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number234
It does not mention menstruation at all. It does refer to the garment as an “undergarment” like “other undergarments.”
The accommodation you may be referring to is the option given to wear multiple pairs of undergarments at the same time:
“The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment. The garment should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment.”
Note that good women’s underwear, or undergarments, if you like that word better, do not require layering with other undergarments to perform the basic functions of women’s undergarments. This is relevant to my point about how garments will never be great women’s underwear.
An advantage to the policy I propose is that we could stop thinking of garments as underwear, and using them as underwear, and trying to find new styles and fabrics that are more conducive to daily underwear use, and figuring out work-arounds like layering even more pairs of underwear at the same time, and instead, we could get underwear that is actually designed to be underwear, and just use the garment as sacred clothing. Our sacred clothing would not need to fufill the needs we have for our daily underwear if we stopped mandating that people use it that way.
It may not mention menstruation specifically, but it is very obvious the message it is conveying by saying you can wear regular underwear underneath if that makes you more comfortable. I think that’s more than accommodating. When I went through the temple, I was talked to about how to handle menstruation with the garments and was told I can wear underwear underneath to accommodate a pad if I want to.
But regardless of all that, having the garments talked about in such a disrespectful way is sad to see. And I guess it baffles me why anyone who finds so much fault in the Church wants to continue being a member. You seem to find more bad than good – and if that is the case, why stay?
Ideally, temple garments should only be worn in the temple (or at church). Of course, this means that many members are going to have to go out and buy more “Gentile underwear”.
Wow, lucky for you that you never had health problems from garments! Did it occur to you that not every female body is like yours?
Do you really want people like April to leave? Do you think that’s what Jesus would say?
I get that this seems sacred and important to you and it may be hurtful to hear different opinions but if you are prioritizing your defense of garments over other people’s lived experiences you’re making an idol out of your garments.
No I don’t want April to leave. It’s a sincere question. She has issues with several things in the Church. And they are big things. So if you hate so much about it and think they’re doing things wrong all the time – what is your reason for staying? You must not think it’s true? And you really don’t think it’s that great. Why would you want to be apart of it? It’s a real question.
And of course every body is different which is why they make them in different styles and fabrics to do their best to accommodate. Is it that hard to sacrifice and wear them 24/7 except for the approved activities? I sure don’t think so. They don’t always fit me well. But a small price to pay for the covenants we make the blessings we receive is it not?
This doesn’t “seem sacred” to me. It is sacred to me and everyone who is a member of the Church. I have no issue with people discussing their experiences in a sacred manner, but calling out the Church like this is hardly appropriate. And suggesting I make an idol out of my garments is quite laughable, especially in the comment section of an article of someone who makes an idol out of their garments.
Shementhod, please show that you honor others and their own loved experience by keeping this a safe place for open discussion.
I am glad you have not had difficult time wearing your garments in sweaty Florida. Whoever, that is not everyone’s experience.
So to be clear, this comment section is to be a safe space for people who disagree with the Church and temple garments, but not to the people who call it out and defend the Church?
Shemethod, please review our commenting policy so you can better understand the rules we follow here to maintain a safe space for people across the spectrum of belief, including active church members: https://www.the-exponent.com/site-map/comment-policy/
In particular, please pay attention to Rule #4, as your recent comments are in violation of Rule #4 and if you continue to violate comment policy you will be placed in permanent moderation status.
@shemethod, I appreciate your responses and clarification. It doesn’t seem like your view of the Church makes any room for people who find value in some but not all aspects of the Church and want to continue to engage anyway. I think that’s too bad, because most of my closest friends & family members are people who have some serious issues with the Church but who choose to stay and engage anyway for a variety of reasons. We still serve and contribute to our Church communities but boy does it feel lonely sometime when people keep asking us why we’re “still here” if we don’t believe ALL THE THINGS.
Saying garments are “sacred to … everyone who is a member of the Church” is frankly just not true. I know tons of members of the Church for whom garments aren’t sacred. They studied it out and prayed (and studied the history of garments and its strong association with polygamy) and came to their own conclusions about whether God cared about their garments and decided God doesn’t. Some still wear them all the time, some some of the time, and some never. But all are at peace with that and honestly that assertion is just literally factually inaccurate.
Not everyone is experiencing and practicing Church in the same way. And saying something that impacts a ton of people is off-limits for discussion because it’s “sacred” is just a way of shutting down discussions that are uncomfortable for you. If you think it’s inappropriate to discuss garments in this way, move along and don’t participate in the discussion, but save your judgment for yourself.
Elisa, I’m curious to learn more about the garments strong association with polygamy, can you direct me to more information?
Your comments are repulsive. Your body is not the same as every one else’s. Consider yourself lucky that you haven’t had any health issues while wearing the temple garment. Also, consider that other people are not as fortunate as you. You are in no position to tell people what to do with their bodies and are in no position to act as doctor and tell people to do something that is detrimental to their health.
Please grow up and recognize that this is ultimately a personal matter between each individual person and the Lord.
I am wondering if anyone else has noted that women and men receive different instructions on how to dispose of old temple garments. When I was cutting out the marks prior to disposing of old temple garments, my husband asked me why I was doing that. I told him that’s what they taught the first time I went to the temple. He didn’t remember hearing that. It became my responsibility to cut the marks out when they were discarded. It’s time consuming.
Fast forward to when a daughter, then later a son attended the temple. The instructions to remove the marks and cut them into small pieces was still given by the temple matron when I accompanied our daughter. Even decades later, my husband and son were not told to do that.
Why can men just throw their garments in the trash, while women are required to spend time obliterating the marks?
This is the result of us getting no formal instruction about garments or other things relating to the temple so instead we just get opinions from temple matrons and of course since we heard it in the temple we think it’s doctrine and since we don’t talk about things we never realize the different things being taught.
I’m not sure how things were prior 2018, but when the wife & I got ours May 18th, 2018, we were both told by the Temple Presidency, the “manner in which to dispose of ‘dead’ Garments.”
Being both a Military Veteran, &, a prior Boy Scout, this reminded me of the “Proper edict of Retiring the US Flag.” (hence, why I remembered it so well.) ^_^
The instruction to cut out the marks was found in Section 21.1.42 of the 2010 Handbook 2 and is in Section 38.5.7 of the current Handbook.
April, thanks for this excellent and thoughtful post! I agree with the simple and obvious solution to remove the question from temple recommend interviews. Fingers crossed this will eventually happen.
Like so many other women, I’ve adjusted my garment-wearing to meet my own personal, physiological and spiritual health needs. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but, I think it’s a lovely ritual. Finding my own way to practice it has affirmed the original intention and meanings associated with the garment, while removing negative associations. Thanks again for your tireless work here.
I have also adapted the practice to fit my own physical health needs. I’m much more mindful about them and resent them less.
How sacred can our garments be, anyway? We fart on them multiple times per day.
Fart on them or within them?
Funniest response all day!
A great way to start my week!
Thank you for a little much needed levity!
One thing is for certain, the garments make fine pajamas. I’ve seen my parents sleep in just their garments, and now I do, too!
I wish I could add a picture to show all the opinionated experts that don’t suffer from this, what its actually like to wear damp sweaty garments all day, every day. All the issues with the garment were omitted in the information I was given when agreeing with covenant. Now guilt is the only offering solution overwriting health, hygiene and common sense. I didn’t think “guilt’ was in Gods toolkit. I’d rather have the symbols tattooed on my body than suffer this all day every day and we know that’s not an option either.
Does anyone in the church headquarters actually see our concerns and wishes about stopping the mandate of garment wearing? If not- who can we write to to send our concerns about garments? The church needs to normalize NOT wearing garments for all of us to stop the shame and guilt.
Jesus and the angels witnessed by Joseph Smith did not wear garments. They were bear chested and visible.
We should follow their example.
I never realized there were so many half-committed, or whimpy members of the church. Yikes! Keeping covenants isn’t always easy or comfortable. It’s not supposed to be. One’s love for the gospel and the covenants made in the tempe should hopefully supersede one’s disdain for the “patriarchy.” As a woman who lives in Arizona and who has worn garments day and night for over 32 years, I can honestly say that I have NEVER been afflicted with UTI’s, yeast infections, messy periods, heat stroke, etc. because of my garment wearing, nor have any of my friends. To say that garments are a cause for any of these issues is dishonest to say the least. Is it really about the garments causing the medical issues? Or, is it that “men” are the ones asking about your commitment to your covenants?
Well, aren’t you blessed, sister? Keeping covenants isn’t always easy or comfortable, that’s true. However, if people were more comfortable with their garments, they’d be more likely to wear them.
This isn’t about disdain for the “patriarchy” or men in general. This is about women who have issues “down there” and their garments are giving them trouble. Yes, you can wear conventional panties under your bottoms, but there still isn’t enough room to breathe.
It sounds like women can’t handle long-leg boxer briefs during their time of the month.
Hi Lori. I see that you are new here. Please review our comment policy, particularly #4, before commenting here again. https://www.the-exponent.com/site-map/comment-policy/
“I have NEVER been afflicted with UTI’s, yeast infections, messy periods, heat stroke, etc. because of my garment wearing, nor have any of my friends.”
Lucky you, Lori! Are you SURE that’s really the case with your friends, though? Or have they suffered through UTIs, yeast infections, messy periods, heat stroke, etc., but haven’t told you because they didn’t want your ignorant, self-righteous judgment heaped upon them?
Moreover to the women who have experienced these issues, are you any of their doctors? I assume the answer is no. In that case, who are you to heap judgment upon them? Who are you to tell them to go against the advice of their doctors, who are well-trained and informed about these issues, and spend time consistently researching them? Who are you to tell them to do something that these doctors have told them is in fact, detrimental to their health?
Please get off your high horse. This is a personal matter that is between each individual person and the Lord.
As an LDS female I have gone to the temple many times and listened to the words there:
1) We DO NOT covenant to wear the garment in the temple. We are instructed to wear them “throughout your life”.
2) The temple recommend question recently changed to “Do you wear the garment as instructed in the temple”. Again, the temple instructs us to wear them throughout our lives. It never instructs us to wear them night and day.
3) Members will differ in their opinion on what throughout your life means. These differences in interpretation should be respected. The judgement culture within the church on our underwear choices is extremely inappropriate.
For me, throughout my life means on Sundays and a couple other times throughout the week. I do not sleep in my garments. There are many days I choose not to wear them as well, especially in the summer heat.
The daily wearing of the garment is symbolic of our ongoing need to keep our covenants and our daily need for the Savior Jesus Christ. “It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment.” It seems reasonably clear (at least to me) what frequency that encourages. It also seems clear (and fortunately for me, has been reinforced by my leaders) that removing the garment to temporarily deal with medical issues is more than appropriate. “It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.” To me, this gets at the heart of it. Do we view it as a privilege?
I’m sorry you feel this way. I’d suggest washing your garments frequently to prevent all the hygiene issues. I change my garments daily, and after 8 kids, I don’t have an issue. You’re allowed to wear underwear during menstruation as well. No one checks on my underwear lol, but on my covenant keeping. Do you ask people to remove their shoes at your door? Same kind of concept. Both men and women wear garments and as I watch the moral decline of the world I am grateful that the Lord at least appreciates modesty!