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

[Calm]

Also:

Quote

Did some early Church leaders teach that Jesus wears garments?

Possibly. There is one thirdhand account that claims Jesus wore garments in the First Vision.[9]There are some accounts from early Church leaders that reference Jesus and use the terms "garment" or "vesture," but it's unclear if this refers to temple garments or simply to clothing.[10][11]

As far as the quote used to describe what Moroni was wearing, besides the use of “robe”, there is nothing to link it to temple clothing and even there “robe” refers to something else besides garments.  Is there another quote you are thinking of, @JLHPROF, that has this link?

George A. Smith’s “vesture without seam” seems to be the only applicable one that I am aware of and that still doesn’t describe a shape like the original garments, only how it was put together.

But how could they be without seam if the fabric was cut?

”Sisters Whitney and Kimball have been very busy through the day overseeing the washings and anointings in the female department, and instructing the Sisters in cutting and making robes and garments.”  (Mormonr primary sources)

There is nothing suggesting a string up method of closure or a collar nor the ‘long john’ silhouette (I don’t know of a more respectful term for that type of shape, I have no intent of mocking here).

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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. 

I think it's my age, soon to be 64. Before taking out my endowments, I was not modest as far as the church goes. So it took a lot of faith on my part to wear the "g's" during those times. It was paramount that I wear them daily, except to shower or swim I guess. So I do see a big difference. I don't judge anyone, I just think of the difference I guess. More power to these women really. And to you! I kind of wish I had worded my post differently now. I do look forward to the short sleeves. For years I've constantly tugged at my sleeves around the collars to not show, because of all the material, in the most modest shirts ever that would still show at my neck. Garments fit differently on everyone. I am just so use to wearing them, when I go without it feels so uncomfortable. 

 

[Calm]

This reference states garments are not to be worn after the ceremony, but saved (does “never die” refer to mortal death or eternal life here?)

https://books.google.com/books?id=BO9iAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA247&dq="I+have+something+new+to+communicate"+Bennett&hl=en&source=gb_mobile_entity&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q="I have something new to communicate" Bennett&f=false

[MustardSeed]

I have been repeatedly told the the purpose of the garment is NOT to reinforce modesty for women.
I have suspected otherwise.  
 

What is the truth? 

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, whatever happened to the idea that we have current revelation?

[JVW]

My wife is a historical clothing enthusiast and I share this same pet peeve with her. If they are making garments with the excuse "these are for people in hotter climates" then why the heck are they making them out of plastic. They should be cotton or linen.

I like the slip garment for naughty reasons, and I imagine many boys will share my enthusiasm. At the way things are changing I could honestly see women garments becoming a strapless bra with an upside down triangle attached for the belly button symbol. They already have garment bottoms that ride high above the knee, so they could become like booty shorts.

I honestly don't care very much how garments end up. I think modesty is kind of the least of our worries as a culture and society around the world right now. Modesty is more like a symptom and with how desensitized men are getting in this porn culture a woman wearing sleeves or a long skirt isn't going to really ruffle any feathers for anyone.

[CV75]

15 hours 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.

 

Maybe they think it's a trunk-or-treat.

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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.

 

My response was to the OP.  His title suggested that long lines (in other words, excitement) was only about sleeveless garments. His grief about changes was juxtaposed against my personal opinion about the changes.  
 

I don’t see a problem sharing my interest in the changes released yesterday as my interests reflect the core reasons those changes were made to begin with. 

[Calm]

https://bhroberts.org/records/09wgH3-3lcAmc/william_clayton_records_heber_c_kimball_alluding_to_garment_description

Quote

Our garments should be properly marked and we should understand those marks and we should wear those garments continually, by night and by day, in prison or free, and if the devils in hell cut us up, let them cut the garments to pieces also, if we have the garments upon us at all times we can at any time offer up the signs….It would be a good thing for us to put on our garments every day and pray to God, and in private circles, when we can do so with safety . . . You all want to get garments, and you need not wait to get fine linen or bleached cotton for your garments. Shirting or sheeting will do for garments. The women can cut theirs from the cuts on their hsubands. We dont want you to come here and take up the time to cut your garments. Go to a good faithful sister, and secret yourselves, and make your garments. We have been crowded too much and we have got to stop it. And if you have cloth, and come here to get your cloth cut, we shall keep it here to make use of it till we get through. We dont want one person that has come into the order the week past, to come into this room during the coming week except those who are to work.

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I have been repeatedly told the the purpose of the garment is NOT to reinforce modesty for women.
I have suspected otherwise.  
 

What is the truth? 

I like the mormonr response

Quote

Don't garments just control sexuality and modesty?

Yes, in some ways. Their primary purpose is to act as a reminder of the covenants made in the temple,[27] including a covenant related to the law of chastity.[28] Garments aren't designed to be particularly attractive,[29] so it's possible they discourage sexual activity.

It would make sense for a reminder of the law of chastity to be a physical representation of what is considered chaste, imo.

[BlueDreams]

9 hours 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)

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 

 

Edited October 29, 2025 by BlueDreams

[JVW]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I have been repeatedly told the the purpose of the garment is NOT to reinforce modesty for women.
I have suspected otherwise.  
 

What is the truth? 

Lol. Well according to my wife, she was told that showing her shoulders was a sin as she was growing up. Not just by her mother, but in church classes, etc. It was a big cultural thing that garments were tied to modesty, at least for her (she was raised in Utah county). And I can believe that that was the case for many generations. My mother was raised in Seattle in an LDS home and garments/modesty was a huge thing for her. I think her parents were the type that tried to bathe with them on and stuff.

My wife has had issues with this garment change, she's been pretty upset.

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, JVW said:

Lol. Well according to my wife, she was told that showing her shoulders was a sin as she was growing up. Not just by her mother, but in church classes, etc. It was a big cultural thing that garments were tied to modesty, at least for her (she was raised in Utah county). And I can believe that that was the case for many generations. My mother was raised in Seattle in an LDS home and garments/modesty was a huge thing for her. I think her parents were the type that tried to bathe with them on and stuff.

My wife has had issues with this garment change, she's been pretty upset.

I was always told the same but have heard it said it over and over recently that the “garment is not about modesty.” I almost feel “gaslit”-  I would like there to be a final statement on it. I’ll have to do some research and see if there has been something from the church authorities on this issue.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, JVW said:

Lol. Well according to my wife, she was told that showing her shoulders was a sin as she was growing up. Not just by her mother, but in church classes, etc. It was a big cultural thing that garments were tied to modesty, at least for her (she was raised in Utah county). And I can believe that that was the case for many generations. My mother was raised in Seattle in an LDS home and garments/modesty was a huge thing for her. I think her parents were the type that tried to bathe with them on and stuff.

My wife has had issues with this garment change, she's been pretty upset.

Do you mind sharing why she's upset, your wife? No worries if not.

It does say a lot about the modesty part, especially when a famous person's artwork was changed to show sleeves in the Ensign a few years ago. 

[Calm]

Quote

To return to the subject of the garments of the Holy Priesthood, I will say that the one which Jesus had on when he appeared to the Prophet Joseph was neat and clean, and Peter had on the same kind, and he also had a key in his hand. John also came and administered unto Joseph Smith, and remember that Peter, James, and John hold the keys pertaining to their dispensation and pertaining to this, and they came and conferred their Priesthood and authority upon Joseph the Seer, which is for the gathering together of all who seek the way of life.

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

There may be more relevant quotes, need to finish my sleep cycle. 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I was always told the same but have heard it said it over and over recently that the “garment is not about modesty.” I almost feel “gaslit”-  I would like there to be a final statement on it. I’ll have to do some research and see if there has been something from the church authorities on this issue.

That's how my wife feels. She used the same word, "gaslighting". Because the church and people are all acting like garments were never about modesty and that she's crazy for feeling the way she feels. It's something that was ingrained in her soul since she was a little girl and she can't just flip a switch and suddenly feel ok about showing her shoulders.

[JVW]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you mind sharing why she's upset, your wife? No worries if not.

It does say a lot about the modesty part, especially when a famous person's artwork was changed to show sleeves in the Ensign a few years ago. 

No way... that's crazy what they did to that picture. Though, I suppose, if it saved just one young boy from the temptation to masturbate then it was worth it. See my above post to hopefully answer your question.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JVW said:

That's how my wife feels. She used the same word, "gaslighting". Because the church and people are all acting like garments were never about modesty and that she's crazy for feeling the way she feels. It's something that was ingrained in her soul since she was a little girl and she can't just flip a switch and suddenly feel ok about showing her shoulders.

How old is she? (The decade is enough if you don’t mind, just trying to compare to my and my mother’s experiences.)

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[Senator]

11 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.

 

That is the revealed pattern?

Color me skeptical

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Senator said:

That is the revealed pattern?

Color me skeptical

If it is, I don’t see any example of church members ever wearing anything like it.  I am assuming JLHPROF is referring to something else, but why use that quote then?

It occurs to me JLHPROF may be using “pattern” differently than myself.  I am thinking he likely never sewed his or others’ clothes using a pattern, so his use of “pattern” refers to something much more vague than mine.

If so, I think it would be very helpful for JLHPROF to provide the specific requirements of the revealed pattern…unless he truly is assuming the original garment worn was the revealed pattern (using it how I would use it…the women were to use their husband’s or a faithful Sister’s garment as the pattern to cut one of their own)

And if that is so, where is the pattern of long sleeves and pants joined together and strung up closed for a high collar effect shown as revealed?

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[Raingirl]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?  

I don’t get all the hoopla, either.  There’s barely a sleeve already.   I’m of an age where I’m not going to wear sleeveless tops, anyway, so I don’t see any circumstance where I would purchase these. 

[Raingirl]

40 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

 

I’ve never had any issues with finding garment friendly clothes, nor do I dress in layers. I didn’t need to change my wardrobe when I joined the church and received my endowment.  I wear the same clothes I’ve been wearing for years.  Skirts and t-shirts in warm weather.  Jeans/pants with sweaters or sweatshirts in cold weather. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

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.

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.

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it is, I don’t see any example of church members ever wearing anything like it.  I am assuming JLHPROF is referring to something else, but why use that quote then?

Yes, but even if there are other things that tell of a different pattern than robes which were revealed if God is all knowing he will have understood that not all fabrics and hygiene products will have been available then that we have now so it makes sense to me that a God who loves us would be ok with changes as things become available. Or rather changed things in the past because the resources/culture in the past were not available till the future/eternity. 

To be clear for those who do not know - I no longer believe in the church, but I do not see why the best and true things must be how they started when you have a God who knows the past and future. In the scriptures it talks about line upon line. Why can't garments be the same way with line upon line we learn what works, what materials are available, what cultures and weather we have around the world, what things are important etc? 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Rain

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, JVW said:

Lol. Well according to my wife, she was told that showing her shoulders was a sin as she was growing up. Not just by her mother, but in church classes, etc. It was a big cultural thing that garments were tied to modesty, at least for her (she was raised in Utah county). And I can believe that that was the case for many generations. My mother was raised in Seattle in an LDS home and garments/modesty was a huge thing for her. I think her parents were the type that tried to bathe with them on and stuff.

My wife has had issues with this garment change, she's been pretty upset.

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.