Garment changes

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not saying it.  George A. Smith is saying it.
He was told by the women who made the first garments that Joseph said Moroni drew aside his robe and showed his marks.

Moroni doesn't seem to be wearing his garments in the JSH selection you quote first. But it sounds like the story grew and changed with the times.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We also can't forget that the men using the word garment understood it as LDS do in later records.
These experiences were recorded by Mormons.
Truman O. Angell, Heber C. Kimball, John Murdock - recollecting these experiences would not have used the word garment if that was not what they had meant any more than President Monson would today.
 

I use the word garment to describe clothes though, and i'm a mormon, so that's not very good evidence in my opinion.  They were literally describing something that someone was wearing; it makes complete sense to call it a garment.

If you search up the uses of the word garment in conference talks for example, they almost always (If not always) call it the 'temple garment' if they are speaking about that specific piece of clothing.  If they don't call it that, it's only when the topic is obviously about the temple and there is no chance for confusion. 

The word garment though is used frequently in the scriptures and in regular discussion when it's just talking about a piece of clothes.  

Take this excerpt for example, which was in the Ensign and is talking about a sister who was determined to sew a jacket:

Many people still do hemming by hand. One of our Relief Society sisters taught us to lock the stitch when hemming, and I have found it invaluable at those times when a heel catches the hem and loosens only part of it. Place the garment inside out, with the hem away from you. Stitch toward you, catching a good deal of the hem, and a very tiny bit of the inside of the material in your stitch. Bring the needle over the thread, locking it so that it will have less chance of unraveling in an accident. The stitch lies flat against the hem and looks very professional.

This was one of many different examples i found on lds.org.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

 

I suppose I'm being overly touchy this morning, but these two posts just irritate me... I'm pretty used to our critics on this board and can usually roll with it... the wink and smiley face here do little to mask the underlying mocking... Jeanne more than Pete... of us stupid Mormons, foolish enough to put up with the wearing of garments... 

GG

I think Jeanne is pretty good natured and doesn't have any malice. As for my comment, I hated wearing them and suffered through it. I didn't make the comment to mock anyone and was just giving my perspective on how I hated wearing garments. I viewed it as a cross to be borne, suffering to be endured.

[Garden Girl]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think Jeanne is pretty good natured and doesn't have any malice. As for my comment, I hated wearing them and suffered through it. I didn't make the comment to mock anyone and was just giving my perspective on how I hated wearing garments. I viewed it as a cross to be borne, suffering to be endured.

I understand your position... isn't it strange how very different we are in this regard...

GG

[BlueDreams]

On 7/7/2017 at 10:09 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Is "implied" or "instructed" the same thing as promising or covenanting? (assuming that instruction is uniform and consistent across all temples)

Also, I don't recall the temple presidency telling me these things. Of course that was a long time ago so I easily could have forgotten. I doubt a brief meeting before the ceremony would have made a huge impression. Is instruction from a temple worker/presidency 1 time the same as a formal gospel teaching. Seems like a stretch to me

 

ETA- I find it a little strange that something considered to be so important isn't part of the actual ceremony nor does it appear to be any kind of formalized written script. It seems very loosey goosey. We can only assume that the temple presidency shared what they were supposed to when they were supposed to but there isn't any kind of record about having done it nor is there record about what they said.

I assume there is probably a Temple President's handbook somewhere that gives them some kind of instruction, but having never seen that I can't be confident that what they say is consistent today, let alone 20-30-40+ years ago

Someone may have answered this already. 

It is standard to instruct on the wearing of the garment before the endowment in the instruction room by a member of the temple presidency or the matron/her assistants. The temple ceremony itself (without breaking rules) iterates the importance of this symbolic priesthood endowment and gift both in initiatories and the main ceremony. 

The garment is extremely important to the temple ceremony. But I do think the reason that the specific instruction on how/when to wear it is to be worn is because that part is subject to change based on leadership. Not the temple presidency themselves. But the Apostles/Prophet through direction and guidance by God. Every once and a while there will be a change. The most recent pertaining to garment use for women is that they were counseled that it's the women's choice how they choose to wear their bra. When I was getting endowed it was more specifically instructed that the garment was to be worn below every article of clothing. Though each individual temple has it's own specific way of doing things, there is an overarching set of instructions....this is, after all, a "house of order." From what I've seen, the temple presidencies work to maintain and adhere to these instructions. When there's a question or concern brought up in our training meetings (that have specific videos going over how work in the temple is to be conducted) at the temple that the leader conducting doesn't know. They often wait to answer, referring back to (I believe) the recorder or presidency to look into the matter from the instructions book. That question or concern is then answered in a later training. I assure you, it's not loosey goosey at all. Church wise, I've rarely seen anything as carefully regulated than the temple covenants and surrounding instructions.

I don't think of Garment wearing as a formal gospel teaching. But a major part in a gospel covenant. Like all other Covenants, how that is to be implemented and acknowledged may be subject to change and has changed, but not by me or just any lay member. 

With luv,

BD

[HappyJackWagon]

23 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Someone may have answered this already. 

It is standard to instruct on the wearing of the garment before the endowment in the instruction room by a member of the temple presidency or the matron/her assistants. The temple ceremony itself (without breaking rules) iterates the importance of this symbolic priesthood endowment and gift both in initiatories and the main ceremony. 

The garment is extremely important to the temple ceremony. But I do think the reason that the specific instruction on how/when to wear it is to be worn is because that part is subject to change based on leadership. Not the temple presidency themselves. But the Apostles/Prophet through direction and guidance by God. Every once and a while there will be a change. The most recent pertaining to garment use for women is that they were counseled that it's the women's choice how they choose to wear their bra. When I was getting endowed it was more specifically instructed that the garment was to be worn below every article of clothing. Though each individual temple has it's own specific way of doing things, there is an overarching set of instructions....this is, after all, a "house of order." From what I've seen, the temple presidencies work to maintain and adhere to these instructions. When there's a question or concern brought up in our training meetings (that have specific videos going over how work in the temple is to be conducted) at the temple that the leader conducting doesn't know. They often wait to answer, referring back to (I believe) the recorder or presidency to look into the matter from the instructions book. That question or concern is then answered in a later training. I assure you, it's not loosey goosey at all. Church wise, I've rarely seen anything as carefully regulated than the temple covenants and surrounding instructions.

I don't think of Garment wearing as a formal gospel teaching. But a major part in a gospel covenant. Like all other Covenants, how that is to be implemented and acknowledged may be subject to change and has changed, but not by me or just any lay member. 

With luv,

BD

Thanks for this response BD.

Are you aware of written instructions that all temples follow? I've never seen anything like this. The temple has obviously changed many times over the years so without any kind of written instruction it seems like we are hoping for a consistency across many temples/leaders and over vast periods of time. I'd be surprised if things were really that consistent and there's no way to check.

As the instruction is not part of the actual ceremony it doesn't seem like it would be verboten to review. I'd love to see it. You reiterate an interesting point that those instructions change over time. So am I bound covenantally by the instruction I received 20+ years ago or by the current instruction? If I only received that instruction 1 time 20 years ago how would I even know it has changed? Is there some process or mechanism in the church to share this instruction? Would my parents be bound to the instructions from 50 years ago and my grandparents to the instruction from 70 years ago? If the instruction isn't part of a ceremony, nor is it given at any other time beyond the first attendance at the temple, it seems like there would be massive confusion based on various 1 time instructions over time (again assuming that the instruction is otherwise consistent across temples and leadership). It would be easy to see how my grandparents, parents and I would all have different views about what is and isn't proper. This seems like a problem.

 

 

[Duncan]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for this response BD.

Are you aware of written instructions that all temples follow? I've never seen anything like this. The temple has obviously changed many times over the years so without any kind of written instruction it seems like we are hoping for a consistency across many temples/leaders and over vast periods of time. I'd be surprised if things were really that consistent and there's no way to check.

As the instruction is not part of the actual ceremony it doesn't seem like it would be verboten to review. I'd love to see it. You reiterate an interesting point that those instructions change over time. So am I bound covenantally by the instruction I received 20+ years ago or by the current instruction? If I only received that instruction 1 time 20 years ago how would I even know it has changed? Is there some process or mechanism in the church to share this instruction? Would my parents be bound to the instructions from 50 years ago and my grandparents to the instruction from 70 years ago? If the instruction isn't part of a ceremony, nor is it given at any other time beyond the first attendance at the temple, it seems like there would be massive confusion based on various 1 time instructions over time (again assuming that the instruction is otherwise consistent across temples and leadership). It would be easy to see how my grandparents, parents and I would all have different views about what is and isn't proper. This seems like a problem.

 

 

That's what I wonder about too. I was told what to do with garments when you're done with them and how to wear them but what I was told seems to be different from others, so it seems whomever Temple Presidency member that day is what you get. I don't recall being told differently in any TR about the care and keeping of garments so I stick to what I was told to me when I went through in April of 1998 at the MTC. When my folks went through in the '70's my Mom got told the 6 "S's", sick, sex, swimming, showering and she can't recall the last two and I didn't press her because I don't want to hear my Mom mention the word, "sex" because ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

That's what I wonder about too. I was told what to do with garments when you're done with them and how to wear them but what I was told seems to be different from others, so it seems whomever Temple Presidency member that day is what you get. I don't recall being told differently in any TR about the care and keeping of garments so I stick to what I was told to me when I went through in April of 1998 at the MTC. When my folks went through in the '70's my Mom got told the 6 "S's", sick, sex, swimming, showering and she can't recall the last two and I didn't press her because I don't want to hear my Mom mention the word, "sex" because ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

I'm wondering if anyone is aware whether or not the current instruction about the garment in the temple matches the page read as part of the TR interview. Is the TR interview where new requirements about wearing the garment are given? As you say, Duncan, there isn't anything in that statement that relates to care or disposal of garments. Has that changed or has it remained consistent for the past 100 years?

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm wondering if anyone is aware whether or not the current instruction about the garment in the temple matches the page read as part of the TR interview. Is the TR interview where new requirements about wearing the garment are given? As you say, Duncan, there isn't anything in that statement that relates to care or disposal of garments. Has that changed or has it remained consistent for the past 100 years?

That is a good question! I don't know! To me it seems higgledy piggledy but I am not due for a recommend until next Feb.

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for this response BD.

Are you aware of written instructions that all temples follow? I've never seen anything like this. The temple has obviously changed many times over the years so without any kind of written instruction it seems like we are hoping for a consistency across many temples/leaders and over vast periods of time. I'd be surprised if things were really that consistent and there's no way to check.

As the instruction is not part of the actual ceremony it doesn't seem like it would be verboten to review. I'd love to see it. You reiterate an interesting point that those instructions change over time. So am I bound covenantally by the instruction I received 20+ years ago or by the current instruction? If I only received that instruction 1 time 20 years ago how would I even know it has changed? Is there some process or mechanism in the church to share this instruction? Would my parents be bound to the instructions from 50 years ago and my grandparents to the instruction from 70 years ago? If the instruction isn't part of a ceremony, nor is it given at any other time beyond the first attendance at the temple, it seems like there would be massive confusion based on various 1 time instructions over time (again assuming that the instruction is otherwise consistent across temples and leadership). It would be easy to see how my grandparents, parents and I would all have different views about what is and isn't proper. This seems like a problem.

 

 

When it comes to instructions about how things are to be administered in the church, I feel we're pretty isomorphic. In essence that what you see in one area has similar threads in others. They have basic instructions for most major callings. For example, when I was a visiting teacher supervisor, my bishop directed me to the part about it in the handbook to describe what my calling would entail. In the 2 temples I've served in there's a little book for the local positions that you may have in the temple (laundry, recommend desk, person in main hallway, etc) with description as to the duties and expectations for said areas. And then in instructions meetings they have both video, shift coordinators, and sometimes the matrons and/or presidency to go over how the temple is to be run. In all of these there's varying degrees of flexibility and going "by the Spirit" to decide what's best in specific circumstances. But there's still a core outline with the most essential areas and procedures (usually those most tied to the ordinances) having far more specific and clear instructions given...not less. I would be absolutely stunned that where they stopped giving specific outlines as to what to cover is when instructing newly endowed members. Particularly on the garment. But heck, I can ask one of the people who would directly know (ie. the temple presidency, matron, or assistents to the matron....maybe my shift coordinators) if I get the shot tomorrow. They're usually running all over the place, so I can't garuntee I'll see them.. But I can see what they say about if there's instructions written somewhere about the care and expectations around the Garment. Usually if you have a question about something that entails the temple....you can go to the temple and specifically ask for the recorder. He also has the role of keeping the records of the temple ceremony and all the nitty-gritty stuff about the temple. That would be your easiest bet. 

 And I'm covenantally bound to whatever is expected of me today. Our covenants are not static but travel with us with time. Obviously some covenants don't change....generally those closest to basic principles or Christ. But others, notsomuch. This to me is in the notsomuch category. Considering I'm not bound to how to wear the Garment even a couple years ago when I was first endowed, I doubt you'd be bound to what you were asked to do 20 years ago.  

 

With luv,

BD

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

When it comes to instructions about how things are to be administered in the church, I feel we're pretty isomorphic. In essence that what you see in one area has similar threads in others. They have basic instructions for most major callings. For example, when I was a visiting teacher supervisor, my bishop directed me to the part about it in the handbook to describe what my calling would entail. In the 2 temples I've served in there's a little book for the local positions that you may have in the temple (laundry, recommend desk, person in main hallway, etc) with description as to the duties and expectations for said areas. And then in instructions meetings they have both video, shift coordinators, and sometimes the matrons and/or presidency to go over how the temple is to be run. In all of these there's varying degrees of flexibility and going "by the Spirit" to decide what's best in specific circumstances. But there's still a core outline with the most essential areas and procedures (usually those most tied to the ordinances) having far more specific and clear instructions given...not less. I would be absolutely stunned that where they stopped giving specific outlines as to what to cover is when instructing newly endowed members. Particularly on the garment. But heck, I can ask one of the people who would directly know (ie. the temple presidency, matron, or assistents to the matron....maybe my shift coordinators) if I get the shot tomorrow. They're usually running all over the place, so I can't garuntee I'll see them.. But I can see what they say about if there's instructions written somewhere about the care and expectations around the Garment. Usually if you have a question about something that entails the temple....you can go to the temple and specifically ask for the recorder. He also has the role of keeping the records of the temple ceremony and all the nitty-gritty stuff about the temple. That would be your easiest bet. 

 And I'm covenantally bound to whatever is expected of me today. Our covenants are not static but travel with us with time. Obviously some covenants don't change....generally those closest to basic principles or Christ. But others, notsomuch. This to me is in the notsomuch category. Considering I'm not bound to how to wear the Garment even a couple years ago when I was first endowed, I doubt you'd be bound to what you were asked to do 20 years ago.  

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks.

If there's not a continual instruction, teaching or updating on wearing the garment, how would anyone know if covenantal expectations have changed? I asked my wife last night if she had ever heard that requirements for women's undergarments over the garment had changed. She'd never heard of it and was quite skeptical. It seems strange that one would have to learn such things on an internet board.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks.

If there's not a continual instruction, teaching or updating on wearing the garment, how would anyone know if covenantal expectations have changed? I asked my wife last night if she had ever heard that requirements for women's undergarments over the garment had changed. She'd never heard of it and was quite skeptical. It seems strange that one would have to learn such things on an internet board.

I finally had to cut the lace around my neckline because they'd ride up and show in nearly every shirt I own and I have modest shirts. I wore a collar that was close to my neck and it creeped out with the lace. I don't see what the difference is, the garment top that is carinessa doesn't have lace. 

There's no way I could wear the shirts that some celebrity women wear such as Marie Osmond, or Ann Romney. I've seen a few shirts they've worn that I couldn't see how the garment wasn't showing.  Maybe it's the they have bigger chests? I'm not well endowed that way, so maybe that's why the garment top rides up.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I finally had to cut the lace around my neckline because they'd ride up and show in nearly every shirt I own and I have modest shirts. I wore a collar that was close to my neck and it creeped out with the lace. I don't see what the difference is, the garment top that is carinessa doesn't have lace. 

There's no way I could wear the shirts that some celebrity women wear such as Marie Osmond, or Ann Romney. I've seen a few shirts they've worn that I couldn't see how the garment wasn't showing.  Maybe it's the they have bigger chests? I'm not well endowed that way, so maybe that's why the garment top rides up.

It's their shoulders. I can wear they shirts their mentioning with certain garment styles, because my shoulders are relatively broad on a very small frame. They don't look particularly broad unless I try an outfit with shoulder pads and you realize my shoulders keep going PAST the stupid shoulder pad (I hate those things). So when I wear certain garments it hits the top of my shoulder. THis isn't the case with all garments, just certain variations. Likewise with my bottoms. My thighs particularly are long so my g's only reach somewhere mid thigh. It's just a natural variation in body size. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks.

If there's not a continual instruction, teaching or updating on wearing the garment, how would anyone know if covenantal expectations have changed? I asked my wife last night if she had ever heard that requirements for women's undergarments over the garment had changed. She'd never heard of it and was quite skeptical. It seems strange that one would have to learn such things on an internet board.

welp I forgot that our neighboring temple was closed....so our shift was stacked! I didn't have enough time to find the matron/assistants. I had talked to my shift coordinator, but she had a similar assumption...though based on sitting in some of the instructions to live endowments and noting the similarities in instructions given. I'll still see if I can't ask at some point. But I won't be back again until next tuesday. Which is basically eternity on this board  

And it's for reals. But I don't blame your wife's skepticism.  My shift coordinator and I were just chatting about that change in how its instructed (they're instructed to state it's your choice how you decide to wear it when in came to women's undergarments...so it's not specific) and how neither of us really changed how we wore it much because we were used to the feeling. I only wear it the other way when I'm wearing a light colored shirt. And sometimes not even then...especially in the summer. Minus it looking silly, it has some serious perks. Like less wear and tear of your $50 bra. And feeling less trapped and without the wire pushing too much into your skin. Temple changes are generally done quietly with only the biggest ones ever really making a splash or being talked about outside the temple. I think that's more cultural than anything...where we're generally light about what we share outside the temple anyways. Some of it's not. There's things that are not related to the specific covenants that I've been asked not to share outside the temple as specific instructions meant only for as a worker. I don't know exactly why. But I respect the request. But things like this change are more like an open secret. You can find it out by asking someone tied strongly to performing temple work, going in with a newb, or something like that. Personally, from what I've seen in the temple, I don't think these smaller changes are meant to be monumental shifts. And because of that, there's less of a sense to advertise or re-instruct...whether right or wrong in doing so. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

[Maidservant]

On 7/10/2017 at 6:18 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for this response BD.

Are you aware of written instructions that all temples follow? I've never seen anything like this. The temple has obviously changed many times over the years so without any kind of written instruction it seems like we are hoping for a consistency across many temples/leaders and over vast periods of time. I'd be surprised if things were really that consistent and there's no way to check.

As the instruction is not part of the actual ceremony it doesn't seem like it would be verboten to review. I'd love to see it. You reiterate an interesting point that those instructions change over time. So am I bound covenantally by the instruction I received 20+ years ago or by the current instruction? If I only received that instruction 1 time 20 years ago how would I even know it has changed? Is there some process or mechanism in the church to share this instruction? Would my parents be bound to the instructions from 50 years ago and my grandparents to the instruction from 70 years ago? If the instruction isn't part of a ceremony, nor is it given at any other time beyond the first attendance at the temple, it seems like there would be massive confusion based on various 1 time instructions over time (again assuming that the instruction is otherwise consistent across temples and leadership). It would be easy to see how my grandparents, parents and I would all have different views about what is and isn't proper. This seems like a problem.

 

 

The garment's initial ceremonial introduction is during the initiatory.  One template or understanding of the endowment ceremony ENTIRELY could be considered an elaboration on the doctrine of the garment; or, rather, what it symbolizes.

[hagoth7]

On 7/5/2017 at 10:37 PM, Duncan said:

...what do you think about these changes?...

Patiently awaiting the style  that Joseph and Hyrum wore at the end, at Carthage

The Kohman-Doh style.

First suggested in Denmark by H.C. Andersen in 1837. A fashion that genuinely merited broader adoption two days after Joseph and Hyrums's funeral, when an overbearing German duke imposed upon Hans Christian Andersen, who had been violently ill for three days, to buc up and entertain his court, and regale them with a tale.  So he did.  

And he relayed the Emperor's New Clothes. The appropriate attire that David and Adam once wore to dance in the rain (or in the sun), before God.

On 7/5/2017 at 10:37 PM, Duncan said:

...and they are so hot!...

I know.

Which was in part why the Smiths adopted the new Koh-mando style...a style that was cutting edge, and is still not yet in vogue. (They were trendsetters, trailblazers.)

I'm patient for it to catch on. Kinda.

[hagoth7]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/16.15-16?lang=eng#p14

Edited July 14, 2017 by hagoth7

[cinepro]

On 7/7/2017 at 10:23 AM, JLHPROF said:

Joseph F. Smith -  “The saints should know that the pattern of Endowment Garment was revealed from Heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.”

Okay, I've very confused.  Help me out here.

This quote is purportedly from 1916.  So it should say:

Joseph F. Smith -  “The saints should know that the pattern of Endowment Garment [as manufactured in 1916] was revealed from Heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.”

That being the case, no one is receiving any of the promised blessings anymore (or Joseph F. Smith was wrong).

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Okay, I've very confused.  Help me out here.

This quote is purportedly from 1916.  So it should say:

Joseph F. Smith -  “The saints should know that the pattern of Endowment Garment [as manufactured in 1916] was revealed from Heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.”

That being the case, no one is receiving any of the promised blessings anymore (or Joseph F. Smith was wrong).

I don't think you're confused at all.
Your summary statement makes that clear.  Either President Smith was right or wrong.
And for a matter of faith we have to determine that for ourselves.

The only thing I think we all know is that the current garment is NOT the same as the original.
If the original was based on a heavenly pattern and President Grant didn't claim a revelation to change it then we can draw our own conclusion.
If the original was NOT based on a heavenly pattern and President Grant had every right to change it then we can draw our own conclusion.

Considering many members today (and frequently on this board) consider the garment a mere reminder of their covenants and not particularly significant in and of itself then any "blessings" are only considered to come from the covenants and not from the garment.  Which renders the whole point moot.

[Erica]

This is a bit off topic but I would really appreciate some dialog in regards to how often you all wear the garment. 

I’ve been married almost 8 years and have never found them comfortable (even after trying different fabrics and sizes). It became such a struggle for me that I began resenting them. After much prayer and discussion with my spouse I began wearing them about every other day, and never at night (my husband and I really enjoy skin time at night). I have to say that giving myself some agency on when to wear them has drastically changed my relationship with the garment. Maybe other people feel this way and that is why they don’t wear them 24/7? 

My struggle now is if I am actually temple worthy since I don’t wear them like the temple recommend interview asks me to. I really don’t feel like I can go back to wearing them 24/7 without some major repercussions to my spiritual and mental well being ( yes I know that may sound drastic to some of you but it’s how I feel). 

What do you all do and how have you made it work?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/6/2017 at 1:35 PM, cinepro said:

My thought on reading that was how sad that almost everyone who was alive (and stuck in their garment-wearing habits) at the time of the switch to 2-piece must now be dead.

Ahem. Don’t be so presumptuous. 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Erica said:

This is a bit off topic but I would really appreciate some dialog in regards to how often you all wear the garment. 

I’ve been married almost 8 years and have never found them comfortable (even after trying different fabrics and sizes). It became such a struggle for me that I began resenting them. After much prayer and discussion with my spouse I began wearing them about every other day, and never at night (my husband and I really enjoy skin time at night). I have to say that giving myself some agency on when to wear them has drastically changed my relationship with the garment. Maybe other people feel this way and that is why they don’t wear them 24/7? 

My struggle now is if I am actually temple worthy since I don’t wear them like the temple recommend interview asks me to. I really don’t feel like I can go back to wearing them 24/7 without some major repercussions to my spiritual and mental well being ( yes I know that may sound drastic to some of you but it’s how I feel). 

What do you all do and how have you made it work?

I think you already answered your own question. If you "don't wear them like the temple recommend interview asks me to," and the interview asks you "do you wear the garment night and day, as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with covenants made in the temple" --- well, . . . . If you answer "yes" to this question, when you're not, then you aren't being honest with the bishop, yourself, or your covenants, are you? That can't feel good spiritually or mentally.

Have you discussed this with your bishop? It might be scary for you to do that, because you might be afraid you'll lose your recommend, but you want it honestly and legitimately, don't you? You will feel better when you talk to him, and you might be surprised at the outcome of that conversation. I would especially discuss how wearing the garment as instructed would give you "major repercussions to your spiritual and mental well-being." This is something you need to counsel with your husband and your bishop about, if you still want to not wear it as instructed.

I'm the wrong person to ask, probably, because my wife and I wear ours always other than sex (or swimming, or things that can't "reasonably be done" while wearing the garment, as the statement in the interview says). Neither of us have any issues with this, and we are grateful for the blessings and protection of the garment. We feel that it really is a blessing. I believe that if you decide to repent (to change your attitude, outlook, and behavior, with God's help), that you will find that this weak thing can be made strong, and that the repercussions you think you will have not only won't materialize --- you will grow spiritually. 

 

[Calm]

Erica, have you tried some of the newer different styles and sizes?  There are also some new versions coming out in January.  I know several women who have had difficulty adjusting to the changes in the last decade or so.  It can be quite annoying and even impairing at times if one isn't comfortable.

I find all cotton works best for me, but it comes in limited styles so I have to experiment with other fabrics to see what style works best and then order them in cotton.  I can feel claustrophobic sleeping and in hot weather in synthetics, which would cause me to wake up and otherwise have problems.  I also do better with the full length style bottoms at night so they are like wearing pajamas and I don't have to double layer (which contributes to feeling like I can't breathe).  I have had to special order them by phone in the past.  It may cost more (in the past it depended on if there was a medical issue or just personal preference), but the long ones aren't any more expensive then a decent pair of pjs and having comfortable layers is worth the extra cost, which isn't that much over time.

Perhaps you can keep trying varieties as they come out and maybe call the customer service people to see if they have suggestions for your particular needs.  Not all the helpers at the clothing centers are familiar with all the options.

[theplains]

On 06/07/2017 at 12:37 AM, Duncan said:

http://www.ldsliving.com/Church-Discontinuing-Making-Changes-to-Garment-Styles/s/85806

I'm just wondering if a discussion of changing temple garments is something sacred enough that the LDS Church
should not publicize it ... meaning even non-temple-going Mormons should not know.

Thoughts?

Jim

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, theplains said:

I'm just wondering if a discussion of changing temple garments is something sacred enough that the LDS Church
should not publicize it ... meaning even non-temple-going Mormons should not know.

Thoughts?

Jim

Not at all. The more you talk about it, the less weird it might be to non-temple-going Mormons or non LDS. If we're embarrassed about them, then others will wonder. I still wear mine, and I'm not sure I can get away from it even with my faith transistions. They are comfortable if you find the right ones. And I'm so use to a layer of clothing between my bra, I feel naked without the top. TMI I know, not what you were asking.