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

[Ginger Snaps]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

We for some reason like to repeat certain tenets such as “God will never lead his prophets astray” and “God is the same today and tomorrow” and “the prophet is led by inspiration”- these beliefs combined lead to mass confusion when change occurs, IMO. 
 

For many , this is upsetting. 

Yes, and when change happens, we tend to forget the other things we like to repeat like, “we believe in continuing revelation” and “the Restoration is ongoing” 😄 

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Yes, and when change happens, we tend to forget the other things we like to repeat like, “we believe in continuing revelation” and “the Restoration is ongoing” 😄 

Humans are kind of a mess when you think about it. 

[Teancum]

On 10/28/2025 at 7:27 PM, 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.

 

Wow!  Why the scarcity?  And why so sad?

[Teancum]

On 10/28/2025 at 8:23 PM, 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.

Modesty is really a cultural construct don't you think?

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Modesty is really a cultural construct don't you think?

As it relates to the covering of our bodies, it is very much so a cultural construct.  One that I believe God works within for our best interests, but still not an eternal standard as far as mortality goes. 

It used to be the height of scandalous for a woman to show her ankles.  It used to be considered immodest for a woman to have short hair ("banging your hair" or cutting bangs was also viewed as a rebellious act in the past, even by some church leaders).  It was also immodest for a woman to go out in public without a hat or gloves.

It's interesting how women are usually the ones getting the short end of the stick with this topic.

[ZealouslyStriving]

I just now dawned on me how hilarious it is that members lined up for hours in multiple locations to buy.... underwear.

Yes, folks, we are weird - and we like it that way!

😆

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

these beliefs combined lead to mass confusion when change occurs, IMO

I think it’s having the wrong assumptions behind these that is the issue rather than these ideas (I believe all these things, but I suspect if I start talking nuances, what they mean to me, it will end up being different from what many others may believe) or possibly just the assumption that these imply that the prophet is essentially the same as God in these circumstances rather than someone who is sharing their own interpretation of the inspiration they received.  It’s the assumption that because God is perfect, communication with God will be perfect with his chosen spokesman, forgetting that prophets are still mortal and therefore can never be perfect transmitters of God’s will as long as God refuses to turn them into essentially puppets.

When people hear these phrases when they have this perception of what being a prophet is (someone capable of receiving and sharing  perfect communication) those ideas reinforce the assumptions they have…the same is probably true for me, when I hear these phrases, I think of how things change, where there have been mistakes or departures from from certain directions for a time and then a reorienting back, so I see these examples as evidence for my interpretation of the phrases rather than contradictions of my belief.

For example, the phrase “God won’t allow the prophet to lead us astray” has for me the qualifier of keeping us off the path permanently, taking us in a direction that prevents us from receiving salvation and exaltation permanently.  Astray is being stuck, being lost in the thorns and unable to find the way back, not any misstep off the path.  I see these Priesthood Ban as a detour from the path of becoming a true Zion people that Joseph showed us in the beginning.  Brigham started the detour because in this area of faith he let fear push aside charity (he originally spoke very approvingly in some cases of Black priesthood holders and leaders) and later prophets at least went along with it until the prophets who listened to God’s correction and accepted the spiritual nudging us back in the path God wanted us on (I don’t know if prophets weren’t listening to God’s promptings that came all along before for whatever reason or if God wasn’t prompting until he was).  So for me seeing the correction, the removing of the Priesthood Ban doesn’t make me question the astray quote like it might others who interpret it as God will never allow error to occur at all in the Prophet’s teachings, it reinforces for me that God is there, directing church leaders even if they don’t always take his direction perfectly.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Modesty is really a cultural construct don't you think?

The physical interpretation of clothing is, imo.

The concept of modesty as humility, a rejecting of displaying wealth or other things to separate ourselves from others, as better than others in some way…I don’t see that as purely a cultural construct, though of course how people express this will vary by culture.

[blackstrap]

On any particular day where I live , I can go from a short sleeved T-shirt to a long sleeved flannel shirt to a heavy down jacket. It is not a matter of modesty but of survival ! Leave too much skin exposed and you pay for it. 🥶

[Calm]

1 minute ago, blackstrap said:

any particular day where I live , I can go from a short sleeved T-shirt to a long sleeved flannel shirt to a heavy down jacket.

I remember days like that.  I miss them, but my brain does not (Calgary was called migraine capital of the world by a few people I knew because of those beautiful chinooks and other examples of rapid weather changes….one year we had snow every month of the year).

[sunstoned]

On 10/29/2025 at 4:12 PM, The Nehor said:

This. The stress and emotion that came from this monitoring hit a lot of people hard. Now to turn around and say it wasn’t that important comes across as dismissive and irresponsible. Also  tendency to take anything the Church “reveals” with a lot of salt. It might reverse and you get told it doesn’t matter as much anymore. Or worse, that it never mattered and you just ‘misunderstood’.

This.  Very well stated.

[Teancum]

On 10/30/2025 at 1:21 PM, bluebell said:

As it relates to the covering of our bodies, it is very much so a cultural construct.  One that I believe God works within for our best interests, but still not an eternal standard as far as mortality goes. 

It used to be the height of scandalous for a woman to show her ankles.  It used to be considered immodest for a woman to have short hair ("banging your hair" or cutting bangs was also viewed as a rebellious act in the past, even by some church leaders).  It was also immodest for a woman to go out in public without a hat or gloves.

It's interesting how women are usually the ones getting the short end of the stick with this topic.

Yes it is interesting and really wrong that it is always the women the get the short end of the stick on this one.

[The Nehor]

Definitely a cultural thing.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes it is interesting and really wrong that it is always the women the get the short end of the stick on this one.

Part of it is a weird blend of homophobia and toxic masculinity anything appearing vaguely feminine being horrible.

Of course just about everything in terms of dress that is now seen as feminine was at some time masculine.

Men limit what they can wear and punish dissenters by ostracism and turn around and police what women can wear under threat of slut-shaming. It is almost as if we just hate everyone.

[california boy]

On 10/29/2025 at 1:37 PM, JLHPROF said:

This meets the description of Moroni's robe in every way does it not?

 

No.  
 

what I find amusing is thinking whatever Moroni was wearing should be what temple garments should look like. If that is the case then why wear temple garments underneath clothing.  They should be worn like Moroni did, on the outside for everyone to see, not as underwear 

[california boy]

Instead of standing in line for hours, would it be appropriate to just cut the sleeves off the ones you already have?

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Instead of standing in line for hours, would it be appropriate to just cut the sleeves off the ones you already have?

You are not to alter garments yourself, so probably not.

[california boy]

Not even to make modifications that the church has made?  

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not even to make modifications that the church has made?  

Here is the Handbook:

Quote

Members should not modify or alter the garment to accommodate different styles of clothing.….

 

38.5.6

Caring for the Garment….

Members may mend tears in the garment as long as the original design is not altered. However, if a mark is completely unraveled or missing, members should replace the garment.

I interpret that as no modification of original design of the garment I possess, not of available garments in general.  A short sleeve garment top was designed to be a short sleeve garment.  Altering it to match a sleeveless garment means modification of the original design to me.  Perhaps others feel differently about it.  It may be because I am not a great seamstress and I figure any alteration is going to look like it’s altered, not like the ones that can be purchased.  Gives me an excuse not to try it to save money.   

Edited November 1, 2025 by Calm

[california boy]

Hope I am not annoying you, but your thinking on this issue interests me.  Do you think cutting off the sleeves of an existing pair of garments to look like the new ones is to accommodate different styles of clothing.    If so, do you think the new design was decided upon to accommodate different styles of clothing?

I would think cutting right before the sleeve would not require any sewing skills.  But maybe what I am thinking about is not how they are currently made.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Hope I am not annoying you, but your thinking on this issue interests me.  Do you think cutting off the sleeves of an existing pair of garments to look like the new ones is to accommodate different styles of clothing.    If so, do you think the new design was decided upon to accommodate different styles of clothing?

I would think cutting right before the sleeve would not require any sewing skills.  But maybe what I am thinking about is not how they are currently made.

For women, there is no seam at the joint of the arm unless you get the long sleeve version, I believe.  The cap sleeve just extends a bit further to cover the shoulder, the fabric is cut to make it curve.  Example of a simple cap sleeve tshirt below.  Very simple to make (though the crossover style and some other styles are a bit more complicated).  I am pretty sure you would have to hem or put some fray prevention glue on it, which would be scratchy.

 

I don’t care about accommodations to style of clothing.  The design of the garment, imo, from my study is cultural and always has been outside the marks.  For me not altering is about respect for the garment.  I can’t remember if that was how it was taught to me, but it’s what I always thought.  Respect was highlighted by the matron who instructed me.  Garments were not to touch the ground.  They were not to be tossed in the laundry pile when dirty, but folded before and after washing.  I was pretty sure this last at least was her personal interpretation because I saw how my mother and father took care of theirs (I was and am obsessive about organizing things and cleaned out and organized my mother’s drawers from time to time as a gift to her as a kid, also did all the toys and the kitchen cupboards, did as much of the garage as I dare as that had Dad’s workshop in it), but between the matron’s intense concern and my mother’s love of the temple, which the garments represented to me, having respect is pretty embedded in me…though I don’t fold them as they don’t stay folded for me and if I lose my balance and step on them by accident, I may flash back to the matron, but feel no guilt….except perhaps about not doing enough of my balance exercises.   

 

Edited November 1, 2025 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

For women, there is no seam at the joint of the arm unless you get the long sleeve version, I believe.  The cap sleeve just extends a bit further to cover the shoulder, the fabric is cut to make it curve.  Example of a simple cap sleeve tshirt below.  Very simple to make (though the crossover style and some other styles are a bit more complicated).  I am pretty sure you would have to hem or put some fray prevention glue on it, which would be scratchy.

 

I don’t care about accommodations to style of clothing.  The design of the garment, imo, from my study is cultural and always has been outside the marks.  For me not altering is about respect for the garment.  I can’t remember if that was how it was taught to me, but it’s what I always thought.  Respect was highlighted by the matron who instructed me.  Garments were not to touch the ground.  They were not to be tossed in the laundry pile when dirty, but folded before and after washing.  I was pretty sure this last at least was her personal interpretation because I saw how my mother and father took care of theirs (I was and am obsessive about organizing things and cleaned out and organized my mother’s drawers from time to time as a gift to her as a kid, also did all the toys and the kitchen cupboards, did as much of the garage as I dare as that had Dad’s workshop in it), but between the matron’s intense concern and my mother’s love of the temple, which the garments represented to me, having respect is pretty embedded in me…though I don’t fold them as they don’t stay folded for me and if I lose my balance and step on them by accident, I may flash back to the matron, but feel no guilt….except perhaps about not doing enough of my balance exercises.   

 

Folded before, and after washing? Wow. I never heard that before. So glad I didn’t because I would’ve just felt guilty for one more thing all these years. That was never ever going to happen in my household.

[MustardSeed]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Not even to make modifications that the church has made?  

I am going to make an assumption here which is only my opinion based on anecdotal experience. The church members like to push limits to the edge, and the church responds by taking control. Which leads to the members pushing limits to the edge. Which leads to the church taking control. There is no one side to blame. It is a system., We all contribute to it. 
I want to acknowledge to you the truth in what you’re saying that there are plenty of people who are excited about the new garment facilitating new styles. I don’t know why that needs to be a problem for people? Unless people are afraid that the church body will take this and run with it and eventually show up to church in a tube top. I for one never want to see my husband in the tube top so I get it.😅

[MustardSeed]

Also, I need to add that I will not be wearing anything sleeveless.  I’m insecure about my old lady arms. Might open up possibilities for me on the stage because there are more formal options with no sleeves. But on the daily, sleeveless means nothing to me now. 
 

There is one exception though. I am having a really hard time deconstructing all of the messaging through my life that shoulders indicate rebellion, and therefore are bad. Logically intellectually I recognize the falseness in this. But emotionally all of the drilling has left a hole that the church refuses to fill at this point by acknowledging the emphasis of modesty which I believe was mostly for the purpose of sexual rigidity and control. I was a part of this problem. It makes me sick to think about it.

I get really upset when I continue to hear messages that conflict. I have to remind myself that people are just human. I really don’t get it. Comfortable in my present assessment, I try to ignore the messaging that upsets me. 

Examples of messages that are bothersome to me presently:

(to clarify, all forthcoming is opinion only)

1. “Garments were never about modesty” . I strongly disagree. I still think it’s about modesty. If not to God, certainly to enough members that the message is distorted. 
 

2. “ what are women gonna wear into those slips?” 

a. Nonya 

b. Doesn’t matter 

c. Why would you ask that? Again, the anxiety of sexuality, particularly of women is ever present among church members ime
 

3. “ I don’t think she’s / he’s wearing her garments anymore.” 
In my opinion, this type of scanning and commentary has a lot to do with what we perceive is fair. Nothing is fair. Mind your business.

4. “ God doesn’t care what you wear. I can’t wait for you to get out of that cult.”

Again, mind your business and your manners. School is a cult. The country is a cult. Your bowling league is a cult. Your family is a cult.BORING. Move along. 
 

And I believe God does care what we wear if what we wear is in relationship to Him. 
 

I could add to the list, but I’m boring myself

 

 

Edited November 1, 2025 by MustardSeed

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Also, I need to add that I will not be wearing anything sleeveless.  I’m insecure about my old lady arms. Might open up possibilities for me on the stage because there are more formal options with no sleeves. But on the daily, sleeveless means nothing to me now. 
 

There is one exception though. I am having a really hard time deconstructing all of the messaging through my life that shoulders indicate rebellion, and therefore are bad. Logically intellectually I recognize the falseness in this. But emotionally all of the drilling has left a hole that the church refuses to fill at this point by acknowledging the emphasis of modesty which I believe was mostly for the purpose of sexual rigidity and control. I was a part of this problem. It makes me sick to think about it.

I get really upset when I continue to hear messages that conflict. I have to remind myself that people are just human. I really don’t get it. Comfortable in my present assessment, I try to ignore the messaging that upsets me. 

Examples of messages that are bothersome to me presently:

(to clarify, all forthcoming is opinion only)

1. “Garments were never about modesty” . I strongly disagree. I still think it’s about modesty. If not to God, certainly to enough members that the message is distorted. 
 

2. “ what are women gonna wear into those slips?” 

a. Nonya 

b. Doesn’t matter 

c. Why would you ask that? Again, the anxiety of sexuality, particularly of women is ever present among church members ime
 

3. “ I don’t think she’s / he’s wearing her garments anymore.” 
In my opinion, this type of scanning and commentary has a lot to do with what we perceive is fair. Nothing is fair. Mind your business.

4. “ God doesn’t care what you wear. I can’t wait for you to get out of that cult.”

Again, mind your business and your manners. School is a cult. The country is a cult. Your bowling league is a cult. Your family is a cult.BORING. Move along. 
 

And I believe God does care what we wear if what we wear is in relationship to Him. 
 

I could add to the list, but I’m boring myself

 

 

I agree with you on most of what you say, I'm the same. I hold those notions in my head too, particularly with not wearing sleeves and what will people think. I probably won't go sleeveless especially now since my arms are flabby at my age.  But I'll bet those people that work out and have defined arms will enjoy being able to show them now. I actually believe the church had other reasons to go sleeveless besides that it's too hot for those in the hot climates. I believe the youth are changing things and the church would like them to keep going to church and the temple. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. 

 

 

[Tacenda]

 

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Also, I need to add that I will not be wearing anything sleeveless.  I’m insecure about my old lady arms. Might open up possibilities for me on the stage because there are more formal options with no sleeves. But on the daily, sleeveless means nothing to me now. 
 

There is one exception though. I am having a really hard time deconstructing all of the messaging through my life that shoulders indicate rebellion, and therefore are bad. Logically intellectually I recognize the falseness in this. But emotionally all of the drilling has left a hole that the church refuses to fill at this point by acknowledging the emphasis of modesty which I believe was mostly for the purpose of sexual rigidity and control. I was a part of this problem. It makes me sick to think about it.

I get really upset when I continue to hear messages that conflict. I have to remind myself that people are just human. I really don’t get it. Comfortable in my present assessment, I try to ignore the messaging that upsets me. 

Examples of messages that are bothersome to me presently:

(to clarify, all forthcoming is opinion only)

1. “Garments were never about modesty” . I strongly disagree. I still think it’s about modesty. If not to God, certainly to enough members that the message is distorted. 
 

2. “ what are women gonna wear into those slips?” 

a. Nonya 

b. Doesn’t matter 

c. Why would you ask that? Again, the anxiety of sexuality, particularly of women is ever present among church members ime
 

3. “ I don’t think she’s / he’s wearing her garments anymore.” 
In my opinion, this type of scanning and commentary has a lot to do with what we perceive is fair. Nothing is fair. Mind your business.

4. “ God doesn’t care what you wear. I can’t wait for you to get out of that cult.”

Again, mind your business and your manners. School is a cult. The country is a cult. Your bowling league is a cult. Your family is a cult.BORING. Move along. 
 

And I believe God does care what we wear if what we wear is in relationship to Him. 
 

I could add to the list, but I’m boring myself

 

 

Quoting again, I'm confused about the slip garment. Does it mean women are allowed to wear regular underwear? I sure would hope so.