Unholy Garments?

[Coreyb]

At a campout with some of my adult siblings and our families the conversation turned, as it inevitably does in mormon circles, to Temple Garments. My older brother who is recently endowed (good for him ) was complaining about having tried all garment types available for men and yet he has not found any that are remotely comfortable to him while working. He along with I and others of our family work in a rather high intensity physical occupation, he even more so than the rest of us. Apparently he has been wearing very expensive sport under clothes than are well designed for the type of work he does, and he wished beehive clothing would come up with temple garments similar to those. We talked and decided that they probably would not/could not do that, nor would a sports clothing company be interested in producing a line of temple garments to be sold at Deseret Book, even if the church hierarchy OK'd it. Also not likely. I gave him a brief history of the temple garment, its several changes, and its eventual centralization of production. I then said that if I were in his position ( and I'm not because the mesh garments work well enough for me) that I would buy the underclothing I am used to wearing in white, both shorts and shirt, cut the marks in them at the appropriate places and sew them up and wear them. He thought that was great advice, but others in my family (also endowed) thought that it was a scandalous idea and would not be in keeping with his covenants. I would be interested to hear what you good folks think.

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Coreyb said:

At a campout with some of my adult siblings and our families the conversation turned, as it inevitably does in mormon circles, to Temple Garments. My older brother who is recently endowed (good for him ) was complaining about having tried all garment types available for men and yet he has not found any that are remotely comfortable to him while working. He along with I and others of our family work in a rather high intensity physical occupation, he even more so than the rest of us. Apparently he has been wearing very expensive sport under clothes than are well designed for the type of work he does, and he wished beehive clothing would come up with temple garments similar to those. We talked and decided that they probably would not/could not do that, nor would a sports clothing company be interested in producing a line of temple garments to be sold at Deseret Book, even if the church hierarchy OK'd it. Also not likely. I gave him a brief history of the temple garment, its several changes, and its eventual centralization of production. I then said that if I were in his position ( and I'm not because the mesh garments work well enough for me) that I would buy the underclothing I am used to wearing in white, both shorts and shirt, cut the marks in them at the appropriate places and sew them up and wear them. He thought that was great advice, but others in my family (also endowed) thought that it was a scandalous idea and would not be in keeping with his covenants. I would be interested to hear what you good folks think.

Making your own garments is not approved.  Handbook 1, 3.4.3

[strappinglad]

The army has a solution for the problem.

[Kenngo1969]

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/callings/military/military-garment-special-orders.pdf

[jana at jade house]

You MUST have specila authorization to make your own garments.  I would call the special orders department and have a chat. surely he is not the only pebble on that beach.  Having said that, I have wondered why, if thgarment is not a punishment , and, needs to be worn except in a few narrowly defined events, then WHY ARE THEY IMPOSSIBLE TO WEAR 24/7 for so many?  The one style which was perfect for old lady me in the tropics they stopped making. Why, thank you. <end of soapbox>

[halconero]

Family friend is a cop. Their department specifies that any undergarments must be black, so as not to draw attention to any particular part of the uniform via contrast. He received special permission to make his own black garments (scandalous right)? He could see about obtaining permission due to workplace circumstances.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Coreyb said:

At a campout with some of my adult siblings and our families the conversation turned, as it inevitably does in mormon circles, to Temple Garments. My older brother who is recently endowed (good for him ) was complaining about having tried all garment types available for men and yet he has not found any that are remotely comfortable to him while working. He along with I and others of our family work in a rather high intensity physical occupation, he even more so than the rest of us. Apparently he has been wearing very expensive sport under clothes than are well designed for the type of work he does, and he wished beehive clothing would come up with temple garments similar to those. We talked and decided that they probably would not/could not do that, nor would a sports clothing company be interested in producing a line of temple garments to be sold at Deseret Book, even if the church hierarchy OK'd it. Also not likely. I gave him a brief history of the temple garment, its several changes, and its eventual centralization of production. I then said that if I were in his position ( and I'm not because the mesh garments work well enough for me) that I would buy the underclothing I am used to wearing in white, both shorts and shirt, cut the marks in them at the appropriate places and sew them up and wear them. He thought that was great advice, but others in my family (also endowed) thought that it was a scandalous idea and would not be in keeping with his covenants. I would be interested to hear what you good folks think.

While I don't have a high intensity physical occupation, I completely understand where your brother is coming from.

I have never been able to find garments that fit me correctly.  I've tried every style and size and have a box full of them in my closet to prove it.

As ksfisher pointed out, policy prohibits making one's own garments.  But, if I had more sewing skill, I might be tempted.  Also, makeyourgarments.com offers iron-on markings so that other members can do what military/law enforcement folks have been able to do for many years now.  But this is not authorized and goes against current policy.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, Coreyb said:

At a campout with some of my adult siblings and our families the conversation turned, as it inevitably does in mormon circles, to Temple Garments. My older brother who is recently endowed (good for him ) was complaining about having tried all garment types available for men and yet he has not found any that are remotely comfortable to him while working. He along with I and others of our family work in a rather high intensity physical occupation, he even more so than the rest of us. Apparently he has been wearing very expensive sport under clothes than are well designed for the type of work he does, and he wished beehive clothing would come up with temple garments similar to those. We talked and decided that they probably would not/could not do that, nor would a sports clothing company be interested in producing a line of temple garments to be sold at Deseret Book, even if the church hierarchy OK'd it. Also not likely. I gave him a brief history of the temple garment, its several changes, and its eventual centralization of production. I then said that if I were in his position ( and I'm not because the mesh garments work well enough for me) that I would buy the underclothing I am used to wearing in white, both shorts and shirt, cut the marks in them at the appropriate places and sew them up and wear them. He thought that was great advice, but others in my family (also endowed) thought that it was a scandalous idea and would not be in keeping with his covenants. I would be interested to hear what you good folks think.

I will take this opportunity to vent. I used to really like the male cotton/poly bottoms. Now, those have an elasticized waist band that curls, and I dislike, and they no longer have a vertical fly, so in my book it's a double whammy. Now I have to get more expensive bottoms to get the vertical fly. I too work outside, and virtually exclusively wear shorts which almost go to my knee - any longer and the shorts wear on the back of knee and they get irritated. I don't see wearing cargo shorts everywhere, so I end up wearing shorts which the garments peak out of when I sit on equipment etc. I so wish they would go back to the old cotton/poly. So being that they only need one mark in them....

[Jeanne]

Okay...I don't wear garments...never have.  But..wouldn't this be a lucrative project/enterprise that would do good for you members??  Maybe specific tailored for jobs, comfort etc.???

[Garden Girl]

Sounds like there are some avenues available for requesting special permission to make your own in limited circumstances... or sending garments in for marking might be an option.  Talking to the SLC Dist Center seems to be in order if necessary (i.e. not just local center)... There's enough individuals in similar circumstances that surely there's a solution.

GG

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Okay...I don't wear garments...never have.  But..wouldn't this be a lucrative project/enterprise that would do good for you members??  Maybe specific tailored for jobs, comfort etc.???

It could be if the current policy didn't forbid it.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Sounds like there are some avenues available for requesting special permission to make your own in limited circumstances... or sending garments in for marking might be an option.  Talking to the SLC Dist Center seems to be in order if necessary (i.e. not just local center)... There's enough individuals in similar circumstances that surely there's a solution.

GG

 

I'm guessing that the limited circumstances are for personal safety (military/law enforcement) or medical issues rather than garments that are uncomfortable and don't fit property (my situation).

Edited September 12, 2016 by rockpond

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It could be if the current policy didn't forbid it.

Huh...seems to me it is time for policy reboot.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Huh...seems to me it is time for policy reboot.

I agree but it won't happen.  Current leadership is too focused on absolute detailed control when it comes to garments.  One only needs to go through the latest iteration of the TR interview to see that.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree but it won't happen.  Current leadership is too focused on absolute detailed control when it comes to garments.  One only needs to go through the latest iteration of the TR interview to see that.

Women have some say in how they wear their garments now, which is nice.  I think the church, in some ways, is giving up some control on how garments are worn.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Women have some say in how they wear their garments now, which is nice.  I think the church, in some ways, is giving up some control on how garments are worn.

I hope so.  My mom would have loved to have a better fit.

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, jana at jade house said:

You MUST have special authorization to make your own garments. 

That's quite possibly the silliest thing I've ever heard.

What you mean to say is probably that "according to current policy, the Church really, really doesn't want you to make your own garments."

The garments are simply underclothing with symbols sewn into them.  If you make your own with the same symbols, then they are still underclothing with symbols sewn into them.  They aren't "blessed" or "consecrated" at the factory.  And the markings are in the public domain, so the Church has no copyright or trademark claim in them. 

For decades, garments were made and sold by private firms and advertised in Church magazines and newspapers.  The idea that they must be made by the Church in order to be valid is relatively recent.  While I can understand many peoples' inclination to respect the current policy, let's not overdo it...

 

 

If you look at the history of LDS garments, I don't think there is any "eternal principle" that can be discerned from their design, other than the shape and general placement of the symbols. 

Could they have buttons or did they have to be tied?  Buttons weren't introduced until the early 1900s. 

Short sleeves and bottoms, or long?  Obviously they had to be long sleeved and legged, until they didn't. 

Do they have to be one piece?  Many thought they did until the 1970s. 

Do they have to be white?  Yes, unless they aren't.

I think the only constant in garment design is that the current generation is far too limited in imagination as for what might be possible in the future.  If you took a set of modern two-piece "dry corban" short garments back to 1910 and showed them to an LDS they would probably accuse you of being a heretic.  The same goes for today.  I suspect the garments of the future will be amazing for comfort and adaptability compared with what we put up with today, only because future generations won't put up with it.

Edited September 12, 2016 by cinepro

[orangganjil]

If you don't like how they fit as underwear, wear them as Joseph Smith did: strictly as ceremonial clothing to be worn for the temple ceremonies - and then wear regular, comfortable underwear as your actual underwear.

We allow far too much arbitrary control from men operating according to their own opinions.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

There's enough individuals in similar circumstances that surely there's a solution.

GG

 

They have modified the garments many times in the last few decades.  Everyone who is unhappy about them should write in and express it and that way the next modification will be sooner than later.  Please, every female add they should have a nonlace option for those of us it makes itch.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

"While I can understand many peoples' inclination to respect the current policy, let's not overdo it..."

Isn't the question the "approved garment"?

[cinepro]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

"While I can understand many peoples' inclination to respect the current policy, let's not overdo it..."

Isn't the question the "approved garment"?

Approved by whom?  I think it's pretty clear what marks God is looking for and where they need to be.  If yours have those, then they are approved by the only Person who matters, and I would be confident in answering so.

For the record, I don't mind the off-the-shelf ones and I'm lazy, so I don't feel the need to make my own.  But the fact that it's even an issue seems a little weird.

And don't get me started on the idea of wearing something sacred and holy as underwear.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

"While I can understand many peoples' inclination to respect the current policy, let's not overdo it..."

Isn't the question the "approved garment"?

The question used to say "authorized garment" but the current set of questions just refers to "the garment".

[The Nehor]

Just wear what you want for underwear with the garment over it.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Just wear what you want for underwear with the garment over it.

That is what I did in the Army...this was long before the Church came up with color garments (tops). It was fine in Germany where it was not so hot. When I came back to the U.S., it was soooooo hot. 

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

That's quite possibly the silliest thing I've ever heard.

What you mean to say is probably that "according to current policy, the Church really, really doesn't want you to make your own garments."

The garments are simply underclothing with symbols sewn into them.  If you make your own with the same symbols, then they are still underclothing with symbols sewn into them.  They aren't "blessed" or "consecrated" at the factory.  And the markings are in the public domain, so the Church has no copyright or trademark claim in them. 

For decades, garments were made and sold by private firms and advertised in Church magazines and newspapers.  The idea that they must be made by the Church in order to be valid is relatively recent.  While I can understand many peoples' inclination to respect the current policy, let's not overdo it...

 

 

If you look at the history of LDS garments, I don't think there is any "eternal principle" that can be discerned from their design, other than the shape and general placement of the symbols. 

Could they have buttons or did they have to be tied?  Buttons weren't introduced until the early 1900s. 

Short sleeves and bottoms, or long?  Obviously they had to be long sleeved and legged, until they didn't. 

Do they have to be one piece?  Many thought they did until the 1970s. 

Do they have to be white?  Yes, unless they aren't.

I think the only constant in garment design is that the current generation is far too limited in imagination as for what might be possible in the future.  If you took a set of modern two-piece "dry corban" short garments back to 1910 and showed them to an LDS they would probably accuse you of being a heretic.  The same goes for today.  I suspect the garments of the future will be amazing for comfort and adaptability compared with what we put up with today, only because future generations won't put up with it.

I have struggled with the right fit all my endowed life. And I dislike that my husband's garments are a dirty gray real soon after he buys them and wears them only a few months. They peak out of his shirt and it looks like his garments are filthy.

My garment tops repeatedly peak out of my very modest shirts for some weird reason.

I see women like Marie Osmond or Gladys Knight, wearing low cut dresses, how do they do that other than altering or not wearing them.

I don't like how the church decides for us on what underwear we where when it looks like it's just policy since they've made huge changes to the garment when Joseph Smith said not to. I recall reading that at one point in time, the garment was maybe going to be discontinued.

This link is an LDS Living article. Boy there are a lot of people that have a hard time with wearing the garment as you will see in the comments listed. Life is hard enough, than to be uncomfortable on a daily basis. http://www.ldsliving.com/Church-Offering-New-Garment-Options-for-Women/s/81281

Hope you find the help you need CoreyB.