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

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

but he told her he wanted as few seams as possible a

So not completely seamless as was Christ’s clothing, so it sounds like Joseph at least was willing for some alterations to the heavenly style for practical reasons.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

The other problem is that those who have sensitivities were treated as complainers or less spiritual rather than looked at with empathy.

 

We tend to be bad at mourning with people who mourn if we don’t see a reason for their mourning. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

g. It wasn't long after this that the Church updated it's policies on making your own garments - requiring that members could no longer make garments from scratch, although they could still make garments from officially sourced materials using authorized patterns

That must be what I remember as “no making of garments at home” because I never did that well with following patterns with stretchy materials, so would have considered it an impossible task.

I would also have wanted to choose different fabrics, so again the limitations meant “no making my own” for me. 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[blackstrap]

IIRC , soldiers , particularly in war zones, are granted considerable leeway with changes to garments. That includes dyeing them and even so much as carrying just the marks in a pocket.

The garments are symbolic as are the marks. Any reference to ' modesty ' is secondary at best and 

an extension to a cultural influence . 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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. 

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’.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

IIRC , soldiers , particularly in war zones, are granted considerable leeway with changes to garments. That includes dyeing them and even so much as carrying just the marks in a pocket.

The garments are symbolic as are the marks. Any reference to ' modesty ' is secondary at best and 

an extension to a cultural influence . 

I believe they order them through their military branch president and the Church prepares them according to requirements of each military branch (I knew these details when I was ward librarian back in early 2000’s because I went every Wednesday night for Achievement Day and YM/YW and did not have a phone to occupy my mind (hardly anyone needed anything, but my daughter was there and too shy to not have me accessible anyway, so no big deal, I read every manual they had in the library to pass the time).

Added:  https://assets.ldscdn.org/5c/28/5c284572e58b11eb82d6eeeeac1e5a30d3af98ef/beehive_clothing_form_military_markings_order_form.pdf

They used to make the garments themselves, now they place the marks on the required under clothing the member sent them.  And it looks like a member can submit the request themselves.

Edited October 29, 2025 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, 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’.

Boy howdy. 

[Ginger Snaps]

My dad was a firefighter and had to wear a navy blue 100% cotton T-shirt under his uniform. He used to buy plain navy t-shirts and send them in somewhere to be marked as garments. 
 

I just bought some of the new garments today. I tried to order some last night but the site kept crashing. When I saw the crowd at my local store, I knew why. They had signs saying the new style top is coming in the stretch cotton in spring 2026, so hurrah for that. 
 

Oh and to answer a question upthread about yeast infections above the waist, some women get them under their breasts, so yes if this top contributes to more air flow and less sweating, it’ll be great. 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Ginger Snaps

[BlueDreams]

6 hours 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 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 

 

[JLHPROF]

8 hours 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?

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?

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

 

[Rain]

28 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

My dad was a firefighter and had to wear a navy blue 100% cotton T-shirt under his uniform. He used to buy plain navy t-shirts and send them in somewhere to be marked as garments. 
 

I just bought some of the new garments today. I tried to order some last night but the site kept crashing. When I saw the crowd at my local store, I knew why. They had signs saying the new style top is coming in the stretch cotton in spring 2026, so hurrah for that. 
 

Oh and to answer a question upthread about yeast infections above the waist, some women get them under their breasts, so yes if this top contributes to more air flow and less sweating, it’ll be great. 

And armpits. 

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

 

-He had on a loose robe - no

- 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. - no

- His hands were naked, - yes

- and his arms also, a little above the wrist; - maybe

- so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles.  - maybe

-His head - yes

- and neck were also bare. - mostly

- I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe - the picture fits, but were they ever warn with no other clothing?  I truly don't know

- it was open, so that I could see into his bosom - no

The description also does not describe the marks, ties, collar, button?, front opening etc.

[BlueDreams]

34 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

My dad was a firefighter and had to wear a navy blue 100% cotton T-shirt under his uniform. He used to buy plain navy t-shirts and send them in somewhere to be marked as garments. 
 

I just bought some of the new garments today. I tried to order some last night but the site kept crashing. When I saw the crowd at my local store, I knew why. They had signs saying the new style top is coming in the stretch cotton in spring 2026, so hurrah for that. 
 

Oh and to answer a question upthread about yeast infections above the waist, some women get them under their breasts, so yes if this top contributes to more air flow and less sweating, it’ll be great.

 

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 

 

 

[Rain]

57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

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.

That became a really big thing the last few years I wore garments. Probably the biggest issue I ever had with them. 

57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

 

 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Ginger Snaps said:

My dad was a firefighter and had to wear a navy blue 100% cotton T-shirt under his uniform. He used to buy plain navy t-shirts and send them in somewhere to be marked as garments. 
 

I just bought some of the new garments today. I tried to order some last night but the site kept crashing. When I saw the crowd at my local store, I knew why. They had signs saying the new style top is coming in the stretch cotton in spring 2026, so hurrah for that. 
 

Oh and to answer a question upthread about yeast infections above the waist, some women get them under their breasts, so yes if this top contributes to more air flow and less sweating, it’ll be great. 

I have scars that itch like anything when I sweat and can’t get it off relatively quickly.  Not as bad as infections, wouldn’t prevent me from wearing garments, but I used to have to take an extra top with me in my backpack if I was going to be out more than a couple of hours.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

 

Not to my view.  It says robe, not pants or overalls.  I never heard of a robe with legs included.  It’s usually defined as an outer or ceremonial gown.

And are you suggesting Joseph could see he didn’t have anything on underneath because he could see Moroni’s skin due to the opening down the middle?

You don’t pay much attention to clothing design, do you?  (I am assuming you are not familiar with the definition of robe and just assumed it was synonymous with clothing.)

Webster’s 1828 dictionary entry for “robe”:

Quote

ROBE, noun [French, from Latin roba, formerly rauba, spoils, goods taken in war, from raubare, to rob.]

1. A kind of gown or long loose upper garment; vestment; a garment of state, used on special occasions, as by kings, nobles, priests, judges, etc.

The priest’s robe; the royal robe; the judge’s robe.

2. A splendid or elegant dress.

Through tattered clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furred gowns hide all. — Shakespeare

I asked AI to find me examples of robes with legs in them like a loose long john.  Its answer (take with grain of salt as always):

Quote

The defining feature of a robe — going all the way back through Latin roba and French robe — is that it’s a single piece of fabric hanging freely from the shoulders, open or closed in front, without division for the legs.

Here’s a breakdown of how “robe” has been used historically:

• Medieval to early modern Europe: “Robe” was a long, loose outer garment, often floor-length. Kings, nobles, and clergy wore robes as symbols of rank — always flowing garments.

• Colonial and 19th-century America (including Webster’s time): The term could mean any long, loose gown — e.g., a “dressing robe,” “night robe,” or “bathing robe.” Again, none with legs.

• 20th century onward: “Robe” continues to mean a wraparound garment like a bathrobe or ceremonial robe — still a skirted design, never bifurcated.

When garments developed to include legs, different words arose — “breeches,” “pantaloons,” “drawers,” “long johns,” etc. None of those were ever called “robes” in any attested English usage.

 

Edited October 30, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

didn't realize how uncomfortable that is until it isn't there anymore.

I have never felt comfortable with any bunching of fabric.  Bugs me when there’s a wrinkle in my bed sheet.  I am so looking forward to these.  Feeling secure in them rather than enduring them.  That will be a much stronger reminder of the covenant for me.

Edited October 30, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Probably the biggest issue I ever had with them. 

Besides the overheating, mine were the elastic waist band and lace edging.  So itchy and even burning at times (the wider band is much more comfortable).  I would have red marks from where I was unconsciously scratching at the lace throughout the day.  Elastic irritates my skin….what can I say, my skin is like a delicate flower.  Can’t even wear makeup for the most part either (some powders and mascara worked, but never creams or perfumes).  I was so grateful when they dumped the lace and they started to make the tops extra long so it would stay tucked in under the waistband, so less rubbing, but the bunching took away the sense of comfort.  Much better to make the waistband wider, stays tucked in without bunching as much since the top fits better.

Edited October 30, 2025 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, 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’.

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

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

 

No.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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

It seems similar to assuming a univocality for the Bible when there are clearly contrasting views and developing ideas throughout it. I understand the desire for stability and predictability, but I find the idea of continuing revelation, including revelation that will eventually refine our knowledge and experience and remove the mistakes of men quite invigorating and attractive (but likely not in this life imo).  I love the idea of eternally progressing.

[BlueDreams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It seems similar to assuming a univocality for the Bible when there are clearly contrasting views and developing ideas throughout it. I understand the desire for stability and predictability, but I find the idea of continuing revelation, including revelation that will eventually refine our knowledge and experience and remove the mistakes of men quite invigorating and attractive (but likely not in this life imo).  I love the idea of eternally progressing.

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 

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

No, it doesn't. 

[MustardSeed]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

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. 

[Senator]

47 minutes 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. 

"For some reason"?   Is it a mystery?    

It's baked in to our cultural, religious vocabulary.

I'm 59 yrs old.  From the childhood repeated ingestion of "Follow the Prophet, Follow the Prophet, he knows the way",   to the adult version of “God will never lead his prophets astray”, to, today's inferred "admittance" of past doctrinal error by way of disavowal; is it any wonder many have some form of faithful indigestion?

I wouldn't say I'm upset, more amused than anything.