Garment Policy Change?

[Anonymous Mormon]

Is this a new policy in section 38.8.49 Temple Clothing and Garments:

Quote

The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn beneath the temple garment.

I asked my wife if she was aware of this and she said no. She was always taught that garments should be worn under all other clothing or underclothing.

Does anyone know when this change was made?

(note: please keep the conversation respectful)

[Rain]

1 minute ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Is this a new policy in section 38.8.49 Temple Clothing and Garments:

I asked my wife if she was aware of this and she said no. She was always taught that garments should be worn under all other clothing or underclothing.

Does anyone know when this change was made?

(note: please keep the conversation respectful)

It changed some time ago, but as far as I am aware the only official place to know about it was when going in to receive your own initiatory and endowments, so not widely known. I knew because I was the escort to a friend and have had conversations with others in the years between.

[Raingirl]

Not a change. When I was endowed, it was made very clear to me that it was perfectly acceptable to wear regular underwear beneath one’s garments. That it’s a personal choice. 

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Not a change. When I was endowed, it was made very clear to me that it was perfectly acceptable to wear regular underwear beneath one’s garments. That it’s a personal choice. 

How long ago did you go?

[JAHS]

Although we were told to have the garment be under all other clothing I don't think there was anything official that said it could not be different if needed. 
I know my wife always wore her bra under the garment. It just didn't work well the other way. There could be other medical reasons to not have the garment be the first thing.

In section 21.1.42 of the old Church Handbook states: "Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment."  
There is no statement in the old handbook that said your bra needs to be worn next to your skin.  Many years ago it did specify that but not in the past 30 years or so.

[Duncan]

I got my recommend renewed a couple of weeks ago and this wasn't mention, I wonder if they'll start mentioning it form now on?

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Is this a new policy in section 38.8.49 Temple Clothing and Garments:

I asked my wife if she was aware of this and she said no. She was always taught that garments should be worn under all other clothing or underclothing.

Does anyone know when this change was made?

(note: please keep the conversation respectful)

 

17 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Not a change. When I was endowed, it was made very clear to me that it was perfectly acceptable to wear regular underwear beneath one’s garments. That it’s a personal choice. 

I was told in 1980.  Unfortunately this was inconsistent depending on the knowledge and inclination of the temple instructor.  Mine phrased it as recognizing there were women there---me---who might have that preference due to needing support.  Perhaps she didn't share that info with smaller women.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There could be other medical reasons to not have the garment be the first thing.

For many premenopausal women there is a monthly reason to wear underwear under garments.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

I wasn't told this when I went through in 1998 but I did learn of it about 10 years ago.  

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

For premenopausal women there is a monthly reason to wear underwear under garments.

I've never had to do that but I understand why some would choose to.

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I was told in 1980.  Unfortunately this was inconsistent depending on the knowledge and inclination of the temple instructor.  Mine phrased it as recognizing there were women there---me---who might have that preference due to needing support.  Perhaps she didn't share that info with smaller women.

I was told in 1990 that it should be worn next to the skin with no other clothing in between. I do know an exception was made for menstrual cycles, but can't remember if that was told when I went through or I heard it sometime later.

[Calm]

 

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never had to do that but I understand why some would choose to.

Isn't a choice if the pad won't stay in place, but shifts around.  Perhaps it depends on one's build or choice of fabric or if one didn't need to use pads at all.  I will correct for accuracy.  

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wasn't told this when I went through in 1998 but I did learn of it about 10 years ago.  

That is about the time frame it changed.  I know it had been changed in between 6 and 13 years ago because I went to the temple with my friend when living in that house.  

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Isn't a choice if the pad won't stay in place, but shifts around.  Perhaps it depends on one's build or choice of fabric or if one didn't need to use pads at all.  I will correct for accuracy.  

It may make a difference with the amount of flow as well.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Isn't a choice if the pad won't stay in place, but shifts around.  Perhaps it depends on one's build or choice of fabric or if one didn't need to use pads at all.  I will correct for accuracy.  

Yes, I think it probably mostly depends on whether or not someone uses a pad, though I don't have problems with them myself if I have to go that route on occasion.  With cups or tampons garments aren't much of an issue.  I know cups are all the rage right now.

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, Rain said:

That is about the time frame it changed.  I know it had been changed in between 6 and 13 years ago because I went to the temple with my friend when living in that house.  

It does seem to have been done as a regular thing in instructions around that time, but unless someone already endowed went as an escort, they would be dependent on being part of a conversation discussing this, correct?  I can't remember any other occasion a temple worker discussed wearing of garments after my own endowment.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

It does seem to have been done as a regular thing in instructions around that time, but unless someone already endowed went as an escort, they would be dependent on being part of a conversation discussing this, correct?  I can't remember any other occasion a temple worker discussed wearing of garments after my own endowment.

Yes. 

[Ahab]

Men sometimes need to wear something under their lower underwear for pretty much the same reasons women do.  Body/bathroom related issues.  Pads of some kind.  I don't want to get any more specific than that.

So it's not just for women but men, sometimes, too.  To help keep the underwear clean and to help avoid any embarrassment.

[pogi]

My wife was endowed in 2006 and was counseled in the Timpanogous temple to wear the garment against the skin and not have anything underneath. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by pogi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Men sometimes need to wear something under their lower underwear for pretty much the same reasons women do.  Body/bathroom related issues.  Pads of some kind.  I don't want to get any more specific than that.

So it's not just for women but men, sometimes, too.  To help keep the underwear clean and to help avoid any embarrassment.

Well said, otherwise garments can get stained over time, this way they can remain clean(er). Of course for those of us living here in the South, it is very, very hot. However, for those who wish to be obedient to God’s commands, he always gives us the strength to do so. I remember the bad ole days in the Army, before the Church made the T-shirts in the color required for being in uniform, I would wear two under shirts, and then my uniform as well. While stationed in Germany, not so bad, when I returned Stateside to Fort Benning, Georgia, it was very difficult, to wear the two shirts, and fireproof flight suits, while serving aboard my helicopter. In those days, while on board, sleeves down, gloves on, blast helmet for protection and the ability to hear one another. It made for very hot days, but I loved serving aboard a medivac helicopter, saved a lot of lives, and without a doubt the greatest job I ever had. 

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

My wife was endowed in 2006 and was counseled in the Timpanogous temple to wear the garment against the skin and not have anything underneath. 

Sometimes those who teach need to be taught better.  I'm sure whoever taught your wife meant well but better ideas are available.  The whole purpose of our garments is to remind us of our covenants.  Let's not forget that.

[Raingirl]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Although we were told to have the garment be under all other clothing I don't think there was anything official that said it could not be different if needed. 
I know my wife always wore her bra under the garment. It just didn't work well the other way. There could be other medical reasons to not have the garment be the first thing.

In section 21.1.42 of the old Church Handbook states: "Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment."  
There is no statement in the old handbook that said your bra needs to be worn next to your skin.  Many years ago it did specify that but not in the past 30 years or so.

It’s not limited to medical reasons.  I was explicitly told it is one’s personal preference, male or female. 

It makes sense to me. I’ve always felt there is a distinct difference in purpose and function between garments and underwear. 

[topcougar]

If this is a change, it is conforming to the way most people wear the garments anyway. I thought that was always the rule that personal choice allowed this. I was endowed in 1977. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, topcougar said:

If this is a change, it is conforming to the way most people wear the garments anyway. I thought that was always the rule that personal choice allowed this. I was endowed in 1977. 

Male or female?  If male, was there any lecture given when you were first endowed on specifics of how to wear them outside of the day and night minus certain activities instructions?

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[topcougar]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Male or female?  If male, was there any lecture given when you were first endowed on specifics of how to wear them outside of the day and night minus certain activities instructions?

I am male. I do not remember a formal lecture. I went through with my father, who was my bishop. He explained the garment to me. He told me it was ok to wear an athletic supporter under the temple garment or to not wear the garment while engaged in physical activity. This was in the one piece era.