Lines around the block and 3 hour waits for sleeveless "garments"

[JLHPROF]

http://Source: Instagram https://share.google/g8z8EEVoTUOBLBZRa

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/10/28/sleeveless-lds-garments-are/

I know they're "authorized" and all that but you can guess my thoughts on this.  So sad.

 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

http://Source: Instagram https://share.google/g8z8EEVoTUOBLBZRa

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/10/28/sleeveless-lds-garments-are/

I know they're "authorized" and all that but you can guess my thoughts on this.  So sad.

 

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?  

[MustardSeed]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

http://Source: Instagram https://share.google/g8z8EEVoTUOBLBZRa

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/10/28/sleeveless-lds-garments-are/

I know they're "authorized" and all that but you can guess my thoughts on this.  So sad.

 

Why would you be sad about an inch removed from a sleeve? 
human beings designed them.  It’s not like God sent a pattern and the pattern got chucked, 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Why would you be sad about an inch removed from a sleeve? 
human beings designed them.  It’s not like God sent a pattern and the pattern got chucked, 

1. God did set a pattern - check the history.

2. This is only an inch so not a huge change. I'm sad that they are so happy to be covered even less, don't want to be more modest instead of less, and have no understanding of the garments that were revealed to Joseph.

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

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?  

You know I do. I happen to believe the historical accounts that God revealed the pattern to Joseph.  They've been hacked to bits.  The marks aren't even in the right places.

Per Joseph F. Smith 

Improvement Era, Vol. IX, No. 10, p. 813; “The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. … They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin.” – Joseph Fielding Smith, August 1906

Messages of the First Presidency 5:110; “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.” – President Joseph F. Smith; 28 June 1906.

Edited October 29, 2025 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You know I do. I happen to believe the historical accounts that God revealed the pattern to Joseph.  They've been hacked to bits.  The marks aren't even in the right places.

Per Joseph F. Smith 

Improvement Era, Vol. IX, No. 10, p. 813; “The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. … They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin.” – Joseph Fielding Smith, August 1906

Messages of the First Presidency 5:110; “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.” – President Joseph F. Smith; 28 June 1906.

Would you be okay with the fabric being different than originally used if the shape/design and colors were the same?

[Calm]

On 10/28/2025 at 6:23 PM, JLHPROF said:

I'm sad that they are so happy to be covered even less,

I suspect it is more the feeling of being listened to that the change in garments demonstrates for many since a lot of women were willing and committed to abiding by that standard.  I never wear sleeveless and usually long sleeved to avoid sun exposure, but I am very, very happy for the changes because I have experienced health issues triggered by garments before and had to stop wearing them (with permission of my bishop) at night and quite a bit of the day (I have always worn them when I leave home except for swimming and the occasional doctor’s appt where they would be exposed as I was taught to do it that way and it just doesn’t feel comfortable to do it differently, not as respectful (not saying it wouldn’t be fine for others, just that early attitudes can stick around even when the reason—avoid mocking—are gone).  And I live in an area where I could (and have) changed garments multiple times a day to try and avoid issues and experimented with quite a few varieties in an attempt to find the ones that worked best.  There are many women who cannot afford to experiment or to have drawers full of garments to change several times a day as they get soaked with sweat or to take the time and effort to wash them daily….and still end up with infections or rashes that won’t go away as long as the garment stays on most of the 24/7, women who want to be obedient and therefore suffer very uncomfortably and in some cases dangerously.  For me it was a choice of continuing wearing garments and being uncomfortable and not being able to get pregnant again or take them off.  I very much wish there had been a better option among garments at that time so I didn’t have to feel shamed because I wanted to be a mother again.

Women aren’t the only ones I have known who have had health issues.  Our neighbors were a lovely senior couple with the husband being a traditionalist wearing the older style down to ankles and wrists. One summer afternoon (and this was in Calgary, Canada, so probably mid 70s) his grandson came up in a panic.  Grandpa couldn’t talk and was just staring blankly at him.   I rushed down of course (we were at the top of slight hill, so it was up and down even if only a four house distance) and once I confirmed it, called 911 and then tried to get a response to see what was wrong. Freaked me out. Paramedics came very quickly and started loosening clothing, couldn’t understand why he was wearing long johns under his street wear.  I explained it was religious clothing.  They ended cutting some off him to cool him down. Diagnosis once they got to the hospital was a heat stroke, dangerous at his age.  I don’t know how long it took for him to start to be able to talk again.  I don’t think he was ever quite the same after that.  It was insane it happened on what was a relatively cool day when he wasn’t doing anything strenuous.  I am surprised it didn’t happen more often when that style was more commonly worn.

Edited November 3, 2025 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Would you be okay with the fabric being different than originally used if the shape/design and colors were the same?

Well until we have the same fabric as the heavenly messengers wore I don't think we have much choice on that. 😄

It's the design that was revealed from the other side of the veil and worn by the angels.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

1. God did set a pattern - check the history.

2. This is only an inch so not a huge change. I'm sad that they are so happy to be covered even less, don't want to be more modest instead of less, and have no understanding of the garments that were revealed to Joseph.

Ok.  
 

im glad for an opportunity not to have 4 yeast infections a year and im glad for my daughter to not bleed all over her clothes - 

the one inch does literally zero for me and most women I know. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You know I do. I happen to believe the historical accounts that God revealed the pattern to Joseph.  They've been hacked to bits.  The marks aren't even in the right places.

Per Joseph F. Smith 

Improvement Era, Vol. IX, No. 10, p. 813; “The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. … They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin.” – Joseph Fielding Smith, August 1906

Messages of the First Presidency 5:110; “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.” – President Joseph F. Smith; 28 June 1906.

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.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well until we have the same fabric as the heavenly messengers wore I don't think we have much choice on that. 😄

It's the design that was revealed from the other side of the veil and worn by the angels.

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).

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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).

31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

That doesn’t look like any temple garment I am aware of.  More like a caftan robe (which are so comfortable btw, one of my favorites; makes sense why angels would wear them imo).

I would never use the term “loose robe” for any temple garment.  Now for one of the robes one places on top during the ritual, sure, but it doesn’t provide full coverage and requires clothing underneath.  It doesn’t fit the description here either beyond “loose”.

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I see a lot of members, women, not wearing garments. Or their clothing sure doesn't look like they are, short shorts, sleeveless shirts. I guess they think we'll think they're doing something that requires that attire, lol. 

In my days as a young person that wore garments, I never went w/o under my clothing, unless I swam. I guess it is a pet peeve of mine seeing the difference. I still wear them and I'm not active.

 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

I think this is a topic I don't have any patience with when it comes to sadness about changes to. 

It probably didn't help that I just came off of being as big as a house with baby and finding myself overheating when temps went over 70 basically the entire summer. There were times I couldn't wear my garments at all and made several compromises to make them workable for even short periods during the day. Or that I still have had hot flashes post partum. Or spaz spotting. And chronic yeast infections. Or a plethora of lady issues that really could have been helped by the new styles rolling out. It was like I was getting a sampling of all the common problems women face with garments styles in a 6 month period. I would have loved an inch or two less fabric and skirt/slip styled garments. 

I'm not just happy. I'm excited for this. For all the women like me who would have had to suffer or compromise with the garment on the regular. I feel good for future me who's still very heat sensitive. 

And I feel no shame in admitting that I'm excited to be able to put on sleeveless outfits. I have an Etsy wish list of things I either want to buy to try to sew just waiting. I never enjoyed maintaining a version of modesty that was never something I really believed in to continue something I truly do.

What I can say is I sincerely wish there was space where you could feel comfortable participating and engaging with temple covenants in the way that suits your interpretation of things while maintaining space for how I sincerely view and engage with the temple covenants. That's probably not feasible, but I do wish for you to have space to engage with something I think we both deem sacred. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I see a lot of members, women, not wearing garments. Or their clothing sure doesn't look like they are, short shorts, sleeveless shirts. I guess they think we'll think they're doing something that requires that attire, lol. 

In my days as a young person that wore garments, I never went w/o under my clothing, unless I swam. I guess it is a pet peeve of mine seeing the difference. I still wear them and I'm not active.

 

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. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

I am unsure about what yeast infections have to do with tank-top style garment tops- which I believe is the principle focus of this thread.

(I am fine with the slip style bottoms for women)

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I am unsure about what yeast infections have to do with tank-top style garment tops- which I believe is the principle focus of this thread.

(I am fine with the slip style bottoms for women)

Quote

They've been hacked to bits.  The marks aren't even in the right places.

Sounds like he’s talking about the full garment, not just tops but bottoms…possibly thinking we should only have one piece even as it was originally?  Not sure if that would be required to be consistent with the original design as long as down to ankles and wrists if I understand JLHPROF correctly.  I understand and empathize with wanting the older style, fuller ritual; the practical side of me, the side that doesn’t believe that God thinks a woman’s health is a necessary sacrifice for obedience, is applauding the new styles, which is not just about sleevelessness.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sounds like he’s talking about the full garment, not just tops but bottoms…possibly thinking we should only have one piece even as it was originally?  Not sure if that would be required to be consistent with the original design as long as down to ankles and wrists if I understand JLHPROF correctly.  I understand and empathize with wanting the older style, fuller ritual; the practical side of me, the side that doesn’t believe that God thinks a woman’s health is a necessary sacrifice for obedience, is applauding the new styles, which is not just about sleevelessness.

I understand his overall view, but I believe the principle focus of the OP is about the rush towards less physical modesty which is manifested by things seen, thus the tank- top top.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

less physical modesty

Where in the scriptures is modesty taught to be less or more by the number of inches skin shows or condemns the exposure of shoulders?

When I was a kid, we attended Primary in the afternoon with sleeveless tops and dresses, BYU allowed women to go to dances in shoulderless dresses if the photos of the campus beauty queens were any indication (they were displayed in the administration building when I attended, I heard at least the older ones got taken down).  My mom was a very modest woman, but we had quite a few pictures of her in sleeveless tops and shorts prior to her marriage…and if it’s decent attire before marriage, it’s decent afterwards.  This was in the 1950s which is often presented as the ideal time for the ideal family (that 50s culture is often described as very family oriented, including promoting the mother to stay at home and raise their children herself)

Wearing clothing that does not expose garments is showing respect for the garment, imo; it shouldn’t be viewed as a measure of “physical modesty” because there is nothing eternal about the cultural standards both in and out of the Church that are constantly in flux, varying from culture to culture.

How strange is it that a woman can be accused of being immodest when she never had a lustful thought in her head or heart nor had any intent to cause such in others while the people accusing her who had that had the evil thoughts as they were looking at her, framing her as a sexual object, etc.

God didn’t have a problem with nakedness until fallen humanity made it an issue since he apparently walked and talked with Adam and Eve while they were naked according to scripture.

I don’t have a problem with having a standard of dress in the Church, my issue is taking it past what known revelation teaches and making modesty about how much arms are covered or the knees or any skin above them showing.  There is nothing inherently sexual about arms so why would modesty get connected with that by God?  Or need to be connected by culture?  What is being revealed by unclothed arms?

Modesty is primarily contrasted with vanity in scripture, wearing costly clothing and hairstyles that require the assistance of others, most likely servants or slaves in that time period, such as in 1 Timothy:

Quote

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array…

 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Modesty is defined as “an attitude of humility and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. If you are modest, you do not draw undue attention to yourself. Instead, you seek to ‘glorify God in your body, and in your spirit’ (1 Corinthians 6:20; see also verse 19).”¹

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/modesty-its-about-more-than-clothes?lang=eng

More scripture pointing towards lack of modesty/humility being shown by expensive clothing.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/8?lang=eng&id=p27#p27

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-pet/3?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng

Proverbs 31 even has a description of a righteous woman in quality clothing, what matters is her heart being towards God and her family and community.

 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

 

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. 

[Nofear]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

Given that the garment is a symbol of the skins of clothing given to Adam and Eve and the Atonement, I don't see it being necessary to have the symbolic reminder post-resurrection.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well until we have the same fabric as the heavenly messengers wore I don't think we have much choice on that. 😄

It's the design that was revealed from the other side of the veil and worn by the angels.

Can you explain how you get the pattern that was first used to make garments, a shirt with arms that went down to the wrists and a high neck attached to pants that went down to the ankle out of the description of a loose robe with a low bosom (and possibly lower if Joseph could the angel had no pants on below the robe).

Serious question as I don’t understand how you got from A to G when A (angel attire) seems fundamentally different from G (original garment attire) except for color. (Though wasn’t there some red thread involved there as well?)

added:  Found a reference…

https://books.google.com/books?id=8X4FAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gb_mobile_entity&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Mormonr is usually pretty good in collecting original sources, but their conclusion is:

Quote

The first historical record clearly referring to garments in modern times is from 1845.[7] However, Joseph Smith probably introduced them in 1842, around the same time he revealed the endowment.[8]

Who came up with the initial design?

It's unclear. There are no firsthand accounts of how Joseph Smith[BIO] arrived at the design of garments.

https://mormonr.org/qnas/0DdNd/temple_garments?