bluebell

That could happen. I don't think they offer the one piece garments anymore, for example, even though those were pretty popular with older generations. I think you can still buy long sleeved and pants garments, but for warmth and not really to placate the 'one true garment style' crowd. If capped sleeve garments eventually disappear, I think it will happen slowly enough that most people who wouldn't be comfortable without them will be dead by then. For the upcoming generations, sleeveless won't be any more noteworthy to them than two piece garments are currently for us. So they probably would care as much about the loss of that option as most of us do today about the loss of the one piece garment option. Which is to say, they won't care at all. (if that has in fact been discontinued. I'm not sure it has. If after all these years you can still buy one piece garments, then I think we can be secure in not worrying about losing the capped sleeve option ever either).

Women could wear spaghetti straps and strapless fashion at BYU until they were banned in 1967. It seems like the idea that modest meant covering everything the garment covered is a relatively modern thing in the church.

To be clear, these changes aren't tank tops. They are sleeveless. Most tank tops will still not work over the new sleeveless garments because tank tops tend to be cut different than sleeveless shirts or dresses. But yes, the sleeveless design is available for men as well.

I'm really thankful they have finally gone back to the real meaning of modesty and not just made it about covering body parts and sexual feelings anymore. It was refreshing to see that link go to an article that talks about modesty in language and behavior, and how modesty is an attitude of decency and humility and not bringing attention to ourselves. There are a lot of affluent members of the church who are fully clothed but not dressed modestly, but that is never really brought up. My biggest issue with the garment change and the teachings around modesty is the silence on it actually being a change. I didn't come of age in an era where it was really a problem but it got crazy in the 2000s (and sounds like it was crazy before my era as well). I don't see the purpose in pretending like those eras didn't exist. I think so much healing could be accomplished if leadership could acknowledge that at times modesty was taught and enforced badly, that such a focus hurt women and girls (and boys and men too, just in different ways), and that the new 'correct' understanding needs to be shouted from the rooftops so everyone gets the new message. I completely see why some women feel gaslit.

That debacle was so embarrassing.

So much of it seems to be where someone was raised or how their parents interpreted stuff. And I think age as well. I don't know how old your wife is but I'm 49 and was raised in northern wyoming (in a place that was settled by BY ironically so has a large latter-day saint population given the size of the towns, but that is otherwise nothing like Utah) and in high school we would wear tank tops and sleeveless tops all the time with no one ever saying a word. My BFF and I even wore them to a temple trip (which required a 5 hour road trip and overnight stay in Idaho Falls). She was the very obedient daughter of a bishop and stalwart mother and our clothing was a non issue. This was in the mid 90s, before 'modest is hottest' really took over in the Christian culture in general so I think we got lucky.

That makes sense. I'm not sure what JLH was referring to when he spoke of angels wearing garments. Maybe he will share that reference.

Yes, that description is why I’m asking, as JS said his chest was visible and he could tell he had no garment on underneath the robe.

JS's description of Moroni doesn't works with the long sleeved, high collared, temple garment that was first created though. Why would he not be wearing the garment? (It's an interesting topic that I haven't delved into much, so I'm asking a lot of questions).

I didn't know you did (couldn't remember if we'd ever had the conversation or not) but thanks for explaining. I appreciate that Pres. JFS mentions unauthorized changes. I think that's very pertinent to the discussion. Do we have access to the revelation that provided the pattern of the garment? I can't find anything about it online but I didn't look very hard.

I think the reaction to their release is kind of silly. I've also personally known endowed women who have been wearing them for a while (including a sister missionary in our mission here in wyoming) and I have no idea how they got access to them early. The old ones had about a one-two inch capped sleeve, so I don't see the excitement of having 2 inches more of your upper arm showing, but whatever. I have no negative feelings about the change, I just think the reaction to their release is a bit over dramatic. This is a sincere question and not meant to bait. Do you have equal feelings about the change to short sleeved and only going to the knee rather than remaining long sleeved and going down to the ankles?

Very true. The Hocus Pocus sequel was pretty bad

I actually think that we have more out now than we've ever had before. Or at least very close to it.

I just started Sharon Eubank's book "Doing Small Things with Great Love: How Everyday Humanitarians are Changing the World" and I am so in love with it. Her style of writing makes it so easy to read and you just want to go out and do something good when you read it.

I’m excited to see the sequel!

My 11 and 12 year old and I watched (re-watched for me) the Maze Runner trilogy. The books are pretty good if you like YA dystopian type stuff (they came out quite a while ago) and the movies are ok if you like teenage hero dystopian stuff. Lots of action, some 'zombie-esque' elements, not much of a love story but more about male friendship I guess. The worst thing about the movies are that, other than the first one, they are nothing like the books. So if you read the books first, you will probably be annoyed by the movies because they mangle the plot. If you watch the movies first, you'll probably find them entertaining and then also like the books if you decide to read them later (if you like that genre).

@smac97, are you checking in every now and then? We'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

None of this really makes sense. If Trump was going to use him, why didn't he use him? Ballard didn't need to be a senator for that to happen. Trump doesn't care what the news thinks of the people that he chooses to let into his circle, and Ballard remained pretty popular in conservative circles after Sounds of Freedom, even with the fallout. Nothing that happened to Ballard was a nail in the coffin for Trump's alleged plans. And if Elder Ballard is the amazing Christian that Tim is claiming, why didn't he stand up for Tim? Why remain silent if the press and the church is saying things about their relationship that is completely fabricated? That's not what a Christian man does, that's what a slimey man does. Tim is throwing Elder Ballard under the bus to save himself without wanting to admit that's what he's doing. And if the church is this corrupt, why does Ballard want to be a member?? Why did he fight his excommunication?

I'm really wondering if he has some form of mental illness.

His wife needs to get him evaluated.

I wonder if people are taking bets that he's the actual prophet. Also, if there are child sacrificing satan worshippers in the church, why wouldn't he have already exposed them?? What kind of crap person would keep that a secret to clear his name, especially one who trades on his personal mission to save children??

I think both definitions would be subjective.

There is a lot of evidence in support of the authenticity of the BOM, but of course evidence is not proof, and not everyone would find the evidence persuasive (and none of it would prove the theological claims).

That's how it's been for me too. The board has mostly be fine but I couldn't get notifications to load at all.

Speaking of empathy (I know this is a tangent to the OP, sorry), I guess there are three other types. Compassionate empathy: Compassionate empathy includes having cognitive empathy—being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes—although it is a bit more detached than emotional empathy. It often contributes to prosocial behaviors, such as volunteering to help a charitable organization. Affective empathy: This type of empathy involves having the ability to understand and share in another person's emotions without being emotionally stimulated yourself. Somatic empathy: This type involves having a physical reaction in response to what someone else is experiencing.8 For example, if someone feels embarrassed, you may also blush or have an uneasy stomach. I can't watch shows where something embarrassing happens (whether they are scripted shows or reality shows) because the secondhand embarrassment is just too much for me, but I don't think I've ever had a physical reaction in response to what someone else was feeling other than that. I can't really picture what that would look like though.