BlueDreams

Again. You're working in an American mentality that heavily assumes race/phenotype = ethnicity. That is by no means a universal construct and falls apart in latin American countries. Soares is Latino from Brazil. He has mixed ancestry. His life experiences will be shaped by a very different cultural experience from yours as a white man from what sounds like the mountainwest in the US. Dismissing that because he "looks white" is offensive. Particularly to mixed people who often end up having to defend their identity because they don't "look" the way other people expect. I'm not doing a country breakdown. You can Google too. "Far out number" is a major stretch. Yes, and when I was born my white rural idaho/oregon family still called my Nigerian father a negro. I was the first person of African ancestry said family met. My great-grandmother told me stories with a sambo doll in "black voice." My mother was the first one I knew IRL who confirmed a belief about the mark of Ham being Black skin....because she still believed it. I have witnessed and heard countless other stories around race and ethnicity in the church much of my life. Racial issues in the church has been just as, if not more, personal for me. Maybe because of it, I don't enjoy narrating "the church" with a singular and broad brush. Anymore than I would right my relatives in such tones. Nor am I going to hold people to what they may have believed 50 years ago. It sets up as much of a false narrative as it would to insist the church has never had issues around race and/or has arrived in terms of racial relations. With luv, BD

Seeking beat me to it....but seriously, your reactionary posts are shooting whatever credible critiques you have in the foot. It just makes you look like a stereotype of what it looks like to be jaded with the church in one way or another. For the Record, Soares does not "look german"* And even if he did and was ancestrally german (he's not), he would still be a latino (not hispanic). Brazil is not hispanic (ie. of Spain) but is undoubtedly part of Latin American. He thoroughly fits the culture and ethnic diversity as a caboclo (mixed ancestry indigenous/portugese in brazil). Asian members are approx 1.3 million in asia. But you probably meant, asian americans which is 1%. But there are still more people of asian descent than what you note to insist they're over rep'd. I have my concerns with the Church in terms of diversity issues. But representation has been improving. As has outreach. They could do more, but our past is not the only thing that informs our present. Let alone our future. There are things in the current LDS apostleship and general authority make-up that would have had leaders like Peterson absolutely uncomfortable in their day. And what I experienced has shifted so much from what I grew up with as a teen in the church than as an adult now, 20+years later. *as an aside, my son is a mix of European, African, and indigenous american ancestry. He has similar coloration to Soares (and his dad, specifically). Our daughter when she was young looked asian...so asian that people kept asking if either of us had asian ancestry and a chinese man asked us if we'd adopted her from china, in broken english. She now looks like her indigenous american heritage the most. I mean this lovingly as a mixed woman of mixed children: looks don't say sh*t about cultural heritage. Judging it based on that is heavily a US cultural heritage of racism and strict racial lines. And it's also deeply ignorant. With luv, BD

I would not, without a second thought, report someone I think is undocumented in some way. No matter what the law says.@Calm noted qualifications that would make it more palatable. Knowing US history and current rhetoric, I wouldn't trust that those qualifications would have been met. I would absolutely find it immoral and unjust. Our canon holds a lot of teachings that I would feel bolstered in with. Namely the highest laws of love your neighbor as your self, that compassion and care determines who is your neighbor....not borders and status, that I am to exhibit to the fruits of the spirit - including long-suffering - and that against these, there is "no law." Etc. Questions like these have not been far away from my mind and heart for me for several months now. Realistically I have been balancing what I aspire to be to what I know I'm called to be right now. I haven't found a balance yet. I don't know what that will look like in the future. I value varying peoples at varying points who stood and fought for something better. To move a little away from a polarizing example, I find myself thinking a lot about the civil rights movements. The ones proactively in it. But I've also thought of the pragmatists who pushed a better life for their children and families by leaving the worst parts of the US....or the US entirely to give immediate advantage to their children. I should note, this also happened in europe during WWII as well. And likely any period of time where there is growing pressures that make a space untenable or unsafe. Personally those two options flirt in my head regularly: active engagement or leaving for a better future. Currently I choose engagement in my small ways. I don't know if that will be my choice tomorrow. I feel like I'm learning unspeakable lessons the last few years. Ones that people don't want to believe or think about. There's so much complexity in what's right or wrong. With luv, BD

No. Why? It's none of my business. I also wouldn't if I found out if they drove a little over the speed limit or have jay walked recently. As a therapist I don't need to do so for other things like drug use. So I wouldn't put a different/more rigid standard on my personal life than I'd have for my professional one. As long as they're not harming someone or putting others/themselves at risk, I really don't feel a need to tell on someone. As an aside, I also attend a spanish ward. I assume someone in my ward has overstayed a visa or something. Being here "illegally" is an extremely common experience and easy to fall into.

We don't claim to know an individual's experience in the after life for the most part. There's a few exceptions. Like we believe that anyone not fully accountable in one way or another are in paradise (babies, young children, people with severe mental impairments). We generally have a more universalistic tendency in framing the afterlife. More mercy and far less punitive oriented in terms of etiology. So spirit prison is more about correction and accountability than it is the classic vision of hell in mainstream orientations (as far as I'm aware of that). You can read a brief summary of what we generally know here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/spirit-world-study-guide?lang=eng I would note that wicked and righteous are not synonymous with LDS and not in our theology. At no point is religious affiliation really mentioned in any of these descriptions or scriptures. That's not how we define righteousness and wickedness.** It's about what you knew and what you did with that knowledge. Did you honor the light of Christ given to you? Were you receptive to receiving more when you felt the call for such? Those are questions that can't be answered by denominational affiliation. Lower down it also mentions that even those in paradise could be described as somewhat inprisoned. Not in the way that they're being tortured or in something hellish. But in the sense that there are limitations to their existence still. (Namely the continued separation of the body and spirit...within LDS theology we are not fulfilled until we are resurrected). What follows is just my personal beliefs and opinions based within an LDS context and my personal experiences. The 2 most formative experiences around this topic includes my grandfather and my twin girls who were born too early and passed. My grandfather was not a good man by any definition of that word. Let's just say he committed sins that scriptures talk about millstones and necks and oceans in reference to. His death, I assumed would be uneventful for me as I'd written him off years before then. Instead it taught me about God's love for Their children. I can to understand the love and deep sorrow and pain he caused them. And I learned that even for him there is redemption. But that must come with accountability and purging of said sins. It was humbling to realize God's greater capacity for forgiveness to my own. With my girls I came to understand the Joy that is heaven and the great mercy God has for all of us when it's difficult to accept God's will more than our own. That transcendant mercy has fundamentally shifted how I view others around me who struggle to change, grow, or let go of things that they need to. Including myself. Knowing God a little more from these experiences makes me firmly believe that most people will be gently welcomed home when they past. That they will be lovingly cared for in the corrections and healing we'll all need. And that even the worst, will be given chance after chance to let go of their sins and wrongs to find peace. I don't know what that means for an individual, but I trust that eternal loving balance. **I should note that I'm sure there are people who would disagree with me and interpret doctrines differently from me. They may even be pretty adamant about it. That doesn't make them more right or more of an authority. I mentioned this earlier, but it may have gotten lost in the posts. So I'll say it more explicitly. I don't believe we'll all be Mormon in the CK. Said less crassly, i don't believe we'll all be members of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints in heaven. Beyond just dc 1:30, I think of Jacob 4 a lot (it's a passage describe God's peoples as a vineyard of olive trees), I think of the Zion community described in the BOM after Christ's coming that led to the people to stop identifying via groups and to be known by Christ. We will one day find place and space in the kingdoms of God, those in the CK are part of the "church of the Firstborn." To me, the work we do in temples is similar to the mud and spit Christ used to heal blindness. And who it heals is not simply the dead. It's to bring us all together as one. Not under the unity of a specific earthly church but under the unity and wholeness found in Christ. With luv, BD

Realistically, that would be extremely hard to enforce and likely a little theologically circumspect. On the pragmatic: which decendant gets final say on an ancestor they likely have never met and what they want on the other side now? My great-grandmother likely has 1-200 direct descendents running around. Getting permission from all of those is untenable and if just one of those said no that would curtail everyone else who would have happily said yes. And the further out you go the more descendants you have to figure out with less real investment in the actual person and more investment about the presumed idea. I don't know my great great grandparents. I don't know most of my great-granparents. I would not feel comfortable saying I know what they wanted in their life...let alone what they want now in their afterlife. Theologically it feels really wrong. Remember that a baptism/endowment/sealing for the dead is at best a glorified invitation. It's not really a baptism like a person receives in any faith community here. No one is forcing the ordinance to be accepted on the other side at all. Some people may receive impressions that the work was accepted, but those aren't then put in a record book or something. Because we can't truly know here and now. This is likely tied to our beliefs in personal agency (everyone chooses their own fates basically). No one can or should be forced to accept an invitation. So we don't presume we can. For a simplified analogy, this is similar to someone knocking at someone's door as a missionary and inviting them to be baptized. It doesn't make the invited person a member all the sudden. We also believe that people can and do continue to grow and change on the other side. That includes ourselves. We do not believe we have a monopoly of eternal knowledge and becoming here on earth. That anyone really does. Even if at times we've acted like we do. Effectively what's being asked is that a family member ignore someone on the other side forever because a living descendant's discomfort with the invitation. And that we lock people into what they were and believed here forever or be locked into what their decendants believed they should be forever. Personally that makes me extremely squirmy. I presume I'll grow and change and expand in the next life. I have no clue what that means or looks like. I don't want someone else here to dictate what it should look like. Lastly we all know that the work we do here is imperfect. There's a common idiom that we have the millennium to fix up the mistakes and errors and misses. Because in the end we believe everyone should have full access to choose and become as they want and desire. Here or there. Whenever or never. So again, exceptions are rare for a reason. That said I do have my annoyances with how it's done. I had someone reach into one of my lines via some distant relative and start doing work for them. It wasn't even an actual relative, so when I corrected the tree the ordinances reset and were effectively voided. It's sloppy inviting, even though it's also pretty astounding how much of a data base they maintain. I should note, I hesitate to send this. I know right now especially, emotions are raw and untamed. Grief is a long long journey and experience that doesn't fully leave us. I'm certain it's there with you today. So If any of this offends you or hurts too much please just ignore it. It's not that important. With luv, BD

Hi Navidad. My compassion is towards you and your wife as you navigate the journey of grief you both are currently on. It is a strange and transformative experience to lose someone so close. I wish you peace and wellness in it. I haven't had enough time to read this whole thread. So what I say is likely to be redundant. If it is, feel free to ignore it. First, it's very very likely your son's work has NOT been done at all. Most people have to wait a year to be able to do work for the dead in the temple in any way, shape, or form. If they did, I would personally consider it void since it falls well out of the parameters and policies set in place by church leadership in charge of said work. It also does not live up to how the powers of heaven are to be used in dc 121. After the year mark, anyone doing your son's work would need to be a direct relative or have direct permission from you. Again without that, I would personally consider the work null and void for the reasons mentioned above. I saw that someone mentioned sooner or later the work will likely be done for him too. I get where they're going. On that...but later could be a ton later. Like after you and your wife are passed as well sort of later. With feasibly it happening way way way down the line past that too. Cuz again, you'd need a close living relative to sign off on that work if the person is recently deceased. I can't remember how recent off hand, but I know that it's recent enough that I can't do my great-grandmoth's work because there's living directly descendents that are closer to her in lineage than me who I don't have easy access to to ask (they live in Nigeria). I can't just do a hypothetical friend's work without some version of permission from their living family or theirs directly, before they passed. So again, a long wait at best. Also, if someone asks, you are not obliged in any way to say yes. "No thank you" is a perfectly reasonable response. Kay, that's mostly policy related stuff...this is just a couple doctrinal related stuff that's sprinkled with more personal opinion than anything. I personally don't think your son is being taught by "LDS missionaries." I think that's a common oversimplified vision of heaven that doesn't fit the revelations we have of heaven in D&C. For one, I don't think there's the delineation between say Adam, eve, or Moses, Paul, Phoebe, and Timothy, and Joseph Smith and President Nelson. They would all be part of the body of Christ. Or as d&c calls it the church of the lamb of God. Or similar to how there became no more -ites in the book of Mormon after Christ came. Baptism and other ordinances given in the temple does not make someone a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. What does it do? Based on what I experienced with my grandmother I think moreso, if it's wanted and accepted by the deceased, it just seals who they are and what they received in this life to Christ and to each other. As in I'm tied to my ancestors and they are tied to me in the same ordinances that tie us to Christ. I'm writing really fast between what my baby and meetings will allow, so if you want that explained a little more I hopefully can a little later. Again I wish you both peace and love in a difficult time. With luv, BD

No offense. But when I see this idea I think people have a simplified vision of what a prophet is. Let's take the BoM. There's actually not that many big prophets. You've got, Lehi, nephi, Jacob, jarom, enos in the early years. Of those, I'd debate that only Lehi and Nephi meet a Moses sort of level. Jacob corrected some stuff and quoted scriptures. Enos prayed for a lot of people and encouraged (fruitless) missionary work to the lananites. Jarom recorded some history and handed it on to his son. Then you have a HUGE gap of time where at most the book gives tiny blurbs from prophets (?) till you get abinadi and the Alma's. After them, the biggest prophets are probably Samuel and nephi/Lehi, Mormon/moroni. That's most of them in roughly 1000 years. It wasn't that there weren't prophets. It's just that their job was largely maintenance rather than some form of transition/transformative labor. and that's boring...so it barely gets mentioned. Most prophets simply aren't Moses level cool. Periods of massive transition IMHO need to be short if one wants to have sustainable growth in the long term. I think this may be part of why I don't have a fave prophet. To me the work is just another calling, no more or less important than the work I have or that you have. The stewardship may be more generalized....but it's a calling to help continue the work and community. What's been my favorites aren't individuals but the people who figured out a Zion society in one way or another. Of those few groups, the anti-nephi-lehites are my favorites. With luv, BD

I honestly don't think I have one. Not even a scripture based one. Funny enough, If I have spiritual witnesses for the apostles or prophets in their callings.... it's been for the ones that I end up struggling appreciating the most. With luv, BD

I don't disagree with you on this. Just said it differently.

Pretty sure I was either aware or am confusing him attacking dan with another guy he's gone after in the past. Either way...not surprised.

Do generally agree. The difference between Hanson and McClellan for me is a) actual credentials and b) I've learned things from McClellan. Hanson was more entertaining debate than educational for me. FWIW I also slowed on videos with mclellan because they were getting repetitive and I wasn't gaining much in terms of new info from him. But he still had a very singular lense/narrative for looking at the bible in particular. Useful and informative, but still limited and singular. Once I gleaned what I felt that I could from it, I haven't been super interested in listening to much more and I'm full on my roster of podcasts...so I don't get to that very often either (read as it's been months at least). I prefer variety in views over a uniform perspective anyways. I think the net positive is when both can be recognized as members of the church and realizing that there's a broad umbrella of practitioners within the faith. But I'm not a fan when a side encourages, even subtly that this is the more true way to be a latter-day saint. I know there are views and experiences that are skeptical of people like me "truly" believing or "really" representing the faith. And I'm not a fan of that. I think that can inadvertently become a net drag as it promotes a view that alienates people who will not see or engage with faith in a more standard member fashion. With luv, BD

FWIW I fall somewhere in the middle of this. I used to watch some of Hanson. I liked several of the debates. But I did get turned off when the debates and dialogue focused on social issues. In there I can certainly see the gate keeping orientation that ttribe is point out. I don't mind and generally assume many hold different social views in the church body. I have a problem with said socio-politcal views are assumed to be more right or gospel aligned than others. And these were often that. There were a number that felt super srawman-esque. Particularly the ones where the argument he was against was formatted by him and then the only guests available were ones that agreed with him. Wasn't impressed at all by that I was willing to ignore one video....but at the time he strung up several in a row. And I don't enjoy watching things to perpetually be annoyed at it. He's allowed his space on the Internet. But there's others I prefer for a more measured approach. I may disagree with a couple points here and there, but I'm not annoyed or irritated by it. Hanson had a way that annoyed. With luv, BD

It's your list with your own choices. But I think there's a difference between something you do for yourself and something you share with others. I can see your point of view but think for a general list for others, it absolutely fits the definition. Of course I also enjoy their channel, even when I disagree with them. I find it comfortably in the Pro-lds side of things. People do latter-day saint differently but in also "pro" sort of ways. This channel is the epitomy of that to me. To me disagreement and even fleshing out arguments for or against a view isn't "ark steadying." That would take more proactive and consistent pushes than what i've seen on that channel. Ps. I don't really go into polygamy discussions at all. So it's not much of a temptation to debate it. But I have listened to almost all of their recent discussion on that. All I will say is that I usually disagree enough with common views on it that I've seen. Both more LDS conventional and less so. I also just don't care that much, since it doesn't have much effect in my worship or beliefs one way or another.

Probably so. Personally I think "ark steadier" is too much of a judgment call. It would be like If I pulled a few of the channels I'm not as much of a fan of and categorized them as "rigid thinkers" or "culture as gospel saints." Pro-lds to me sounds more neutral and fits the overarching banner of folks who ascribe positively within an LDS framework. Both of the sites I mentioned definitely fit that. Faith matters is run by active members (as far as I can tell) who quite often bring in other active members of the faith who tend to be more intellectual in nature (think Terryl/Fiona Givens, Carol Lynn pearson, Jennifer finlayson-fife, Patrick mason, etc). It may not be your specific cup of herbal tea. But it's still within the wide umbrella of participating church members IMHO. Make sense. There really are and it seems to have really blossomed over the last couple of years.

Quite the list! You're missing 2 that I frequent quite a bit that are fairly big: Come back podcast (37.8 subscribers) Faith Matters (23.6k Subscribers) Again, this list is more exhaustive than I would have been able to make....but thought you'd like 2 more.

This was answered already....but it's another cultural policy that hasn't been a real policy for years now. There were often mixed instructions on this coming through when I first was a temple worker I saw and heard this start to shift. I have no qualms talking about my undies to other ladies especially. I always wear undies for my period under my garments cuz anything else would be a hot mess. I usually wear my bra over my garments if I wear one. This is more for utility. It helps keep my g's in place and I buy ones that look like an undershirt to avoid another layer. Plus it reduces go often I need to wash my bra, elongating it's lifespan. I have no problem wearing it the other way though. Many women are stuck mentally though with whatever they were instructed to do. Either outright in the temple or by others after the fact. This can lead some to have unnecessarily strong opinions about treating them more like underwear or more like an under garment. In my head it can be both based on looser but more universal and more recent instructions/policies. I use them as both depending on what's most practical that day. As an aside. It's been a few days and I really like the new g's. I had a hot flash in the top the other day...and it was so much more bearable and shorter lived because of the materials wicking abilities. The cut leads to less figiting and fixing the garment on my usual outfits and it's made it overall more comfortable...even though I never really minded the other cuts for comfort. This one feels like a second skin. Close amd tight, but moves with me so I actually feel it less. The only complaints I have is that the nylon can be a little bit of a static fest on the slip style and the tops can roll up. I'm ordering a longer one just so see if that helps a little. But I'll definitely take this over my previous problems with G's. My husband got a little sensitive of the material by the end of the day, but he's hoping a run in the wash will help that because he also strongly prefers these over his usually sleeved ones. He's completely sold on the bottoms even though it took a moment to adjust to the tighter fit. I was reading in a comment on another site that this was years in the making and preparation. I'm grateful for it. I get that this is a sensitive topic for many who received a variety of uncomfortable messages around this and modesty for years. Including for myself. I also recognize it can be uncomfortable for other who invested and strongly believed in the policies as some variation of gospel truth or who believe in more constant standards in their interpretation of what it means to have a consistent God. But I think I'm choosing more than anything just to be grateful change came to meet the needs and comfort of members around the world more fully. With luv BD

Me too. It's one of the things I like the most about the church... But I can understand to some degree the lure to things like univocality. I was watching a show tonight with a fairly accurate depiction of a Catholic practice and I could see the appeal to a very sovereign ultimate authority vision of God. I can see that same draw in that in our church...the straightforwardness of it all that makes a clear and unwavering world in the midst of the chaos life brings. And I could imagine how doing change too rapidly or radically would likely not do well for folks who fit this category. I don't want a church that's in a constant cultural tug of war amongst it's members. So I try to be patient with those who seem to me to fall into this line of reasoning more. And try not to fall into my own pitfalls by assuming my vision of the gospel likely has its own pitfalls and weaknesses I don't see. It's not how I've done faith personally, so I probably naturally see the weaknesses to it more. But I can see the allure to it. Even at points it's strengths. With luv, BD

I think there's a cost we pay by assuming a level of continuity and unity in the church that's not really there and (IMHO) can't be there. This is part of the cost....we don't know how to dialogue and accept contradictions and change well. We're getting better at it, but it's not a natural language for many and there's still a lot of people who are invested in the more simplistic model of what it means for our church to be true. Either proactively by firmly wanting and trying to maintain it. Or reactively by only engaging in the church in this singular entity that's singularly harmful in one way or another. Both can be pretty problematic and emotionally tenuous from what I've seen. I With luv, BD

I tried a little of each of them and already decided I need a slightly smaller size for the full slip one. It's especially loose, which would have been AMAZING this summer, but is a little too much for me now. I really like the half slip for my skirts and dresses. I'll likely wear these with any dress or skirt I wear in the summer. It allowed me to basically move it to wherever was most comfortable on my torso. Since I still have a solid baby pooch due to diastasis recti, that's on my upper waist. Not a huge fan on the elastic waist, but I'll take it for the versatility. I'm not a fan of the regular bottoms I got. They only had regular and said they'd redone the sizing...but it's still the usual issue with me with the cut... it's too high up on my waist and squishes my belly in half. So I have to roll it down. I may try again when there's petites available, the fabric is still very comfy. The first thing I noticed was definitely the lack of armpit fabric. I didn't realize how uncomfortable that is until it isn't there anymore. I bought a pair for my husband and he's also very very sold on that alone. The bottoms for him look a lot like bike shorts and he was surprised to realize that even though they're snug fitting... they're also comfy. The fabric seems to be very fast drying though. I peeled off my sweaty g's from the hot flashes I'd had 20 minutes prior and put these on then immediately needed to feed baby. I leaked on them pretty heavily and in 3-5 minutes they were completely dry. So it's giving me some good omens for summer. That said I'll probably wait before buying too many more until the cross over style comes out early next year. They're better for breast feeding and I wear more v-neck tops. I'm also hoping they'll fit my chest better since I currently have post-baby boobs. These fit but they're definitely stretched and it messes with the fabric over my shoulders. Besides by then I might be down a size or three again. With luv, BD

I think both can be true at the same time. In the sense that there are people in the church that have interpreted it either way. I remember I had a friend who was certain after being endowed that she should only wear clothes that reach the knee or lower. I was a temple worker at the time and was confused where she got that from. I went to the temple soon after and listened careful multiple times....and still couldn't figure it out. So much of what we get from a church setting is interpreted from family, local, regional, and personal lenses that we just don't acknowledge enough as happening in the church. And when the general authorities more consistently hailed from the US (mountainwest in particular) it reflected that even more. With luv, BD

I think it's the sensitivity to the topic. I haven't had a moment to respond to others, but I can feel this topic hitting me more sensitively than is my normal. I think BB mentioned that the 2000's were when they went hard on modesty in how they taught it and that does fit my experience. My clothes were chronically monitored as a teen to young adult. Modesty as a topic bothered me. A lot of the talk and presumptions around it in didn't line up to my experiences. That's a soft way of putting it. I try not to bite people's heads off. But I can imagine others may have stronger reactions from experiences similar or worse than me. As an aside, I had another hot flash/sweats and decided to buy a few pairs to try today. The line was definitely there...but it wasn't crazy. More later. With luv, BD

It may be most accurate to say it limits choices and only caters to a couple of outfit options. Personally, I feel ugly in t-shirts. I have very wide shoulders on a slim frame and when I was younger I had a very very thin frame with long very thin arms. T-shirts made me look like I was anorexic and I don't actually feel cooler in cotton. I used to be able to wear the same clothes for years....until I got pregnant. I went from a 2-4 to a 6-8 down to a 0-2 then back up to a 6-8 to a 10-12 to heaven help me if I can find a size to fit my basketball they call pregnancy on my last baby (he was a big and long boy on a very short torso'd lady). This was all in a 7 year period and I'm 2 months postpartum now wondering what my new normal will be weight wise and trying my hardest to not buy or mend clothes until I'm sure I've stabilized. I've been doing heavy amounts of shedding clothes that I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to wear again due to permanent hip and breast changes, making some of my clothes as I really do not appreciate the current cosplaying my childhood trend going on right now in most stores, and saying goodbye to a few clothes that are just simply wearing out because the material they're made from is crap for long term use (I'm trying to replace them with sturdier material). For some people and climates, garments really aren't challenging. I like them in the winter personally, because they add another layer to the cold for example. But that's not everybody and it doesn't fix that other people experience them differently. Heck, i experienced them differently at different sizes and periods of me wearing them. I used to be less heat sensitive and didn't notice the extra layer. I used to be smaller and could wear different styles that suddenly didn't work when my size changed and the garments changed with it. I never got yeast infections until this pregnancy. I never had a hot flash or postpartum sweats when I first started wearing them in my 20's. I lived in northern parts of the US. etc. I think part of the reason it took this long to change them is because people who were less likely to have problems with them were often the ones designing them. It worked for them so it should work for everyone. But that's just not a good measure for if the garments is meeting the people where they're truly at. I don't expect garments to be perfect all the time. I don't expect garments to always fit every fashion trends. I don't think they should, if I'm being honest. But I'm still happy that there's more space and recognition that we are not all the same and there needs to be more wiggle room for those differences. With luv, BD

The light fabric tanks are more useful for overheating. I ran into the limits of garment with this for the first time truly when visiting Sicily in August. It was literally too hot for me on the streets. Which meant to avoid overheating I didn't wear my garments while touring during the day and wore the loosest linen I could find in the markets to allow my body to properly sweat. My SIL lived in a very hot and humid area in peru and when they talked about getting endowed in relief society, the biggest barrier to the sisters wanting to was the heat and wearing garments in them. There's areas of the world and the US where just a little more adjustability can make a world of difference. And with the garments as is, to make an outfit work with g's with women's clothing means needing layers. So I can often be wearing 3 to 4 layers of fabrics in the summer, making light summer friendly outfits suddenly very warm. When this happens, the garment layer often becomes a glorified sweat collector. Unless you can find just the right shirts that are already garment friendly. Which can become more of less available depending the style that year. As an aside, I'm also looking forward to getting my husband some to reduce pit stains. His garments would last longer if it were for that. I buy pretty expensive deodorant to help reduce them. No way will I get my husband to do that too. With luv, BD

Might sincerely be different times. I wear mine as consistently as seems fit. But what's on my list of "not fit" is definitely more than just swimming.