Tacenda Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 I'm ruined. 😉 Cannot go back to liking my bra against my skin. Love a barrier now. I can't go w/o it now even if I wanted to.
MustardSeed Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 Men often wear their temple undershirt exposed the way a regular undershirt would be, with the neck exposed under the Oxford. ive started using my temple undershirt in place of my tank top, now that the tops are not seamed and gathered. im much more comfortable without allllll the layers. Goodness I wish today’s options had been available 30 years ago. 2
Calm Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, topcougar said: 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. All the women I have talked to have received such formal instruction from the temple worker caring for the first time endowments. 2
Calm Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: I'm ruined. 😉 Cannot go back to liking my bra against my skin. Love a barrier now. I can't go w/o it now even if I wanted to. You could try a different fabric for your bra.
JAHS Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: Men often wear their temple undershirt exposed the way a regular undershirt would be, with the neck exposed under the Oxford. ive started using my temple undershirt in place of my tank top, now that the tops are not seamed and gathered. im much more comfortable without allllll the layers. Goodness I wish today’s options had been available 30 years ago. Right. The only thing I liked about the old one-piece garment is that they gave some protection when I had to sit on those dirty old Austrian toilet seats while on my mission.
Calm Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, JAHS said: Right. The only thing I liked about the old one-piece garment is that they gave some protection when I had to sit on those dirty old Austrian toilet seats while on my mission. Wow! A TMI post for me. Those are few and far between. Well done. Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm 1
mfbukowski Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 6 hours 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. Correct. As temple workers we are trained not to question visible, say black, or red or ANY underwear on patrons. Some folks have a medical need, some may not Sisters are aware of these situations more than the brethren, if you get my drift, but the bottom line is, someone else's underwear is between them and God.
Traela Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 I was endowed in 1990, and was told the garment should be against the skin. However, I found that completely impractical when I was nursing.
Ginger Snaps Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 Endowed 1998. I don’t remember being instructed about the bra, but I do remember being told we could wear underwear underneath during our cycle. My MIL is a temple worker and informed me a few years ago that they are now instructed to tell the patron that it is their choice whether to wear their bra over or under. It’s probably been at least 3 years. 2
bluebell Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Correct. As temple workers we are trained not to question visible, say black, or red or ANY underwear on patrons. Some folks have a medical need, some may not Sisters are aware of these situations more than the brethren, if you get my drift, but the bottom line is, someone else's underwear is between them and God. I’ve accidentally worn a black bra to the temple. Not fun!! Edited February 21, 2020 by bluebell
Popular Post MustardSeed Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Posted February 21, 2020 I’m in serious mourning as I read through these. I really wish someone else had been my patron when I went through for my endowments. My periods were awful and I could have used the flexibility. it’s really disheartening to know it could have been avoided with a less zealous patron. 5
Calm Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: I’m in serious mourning as I read through these. I really wish someone else had been my patron when I went through for my endowments. My periods were awful and I could have used the flexibility. it’s really disheartening to know it could have been avoided with a less zealous patron. I am sorry for you. I sort of know how you feel (my medical issues would be tons less if my doctors had kept up on the latest....instead I got put on the worst medication for it ever and likely sped up the seriousness by at least ten years and probably 20 if my siblings are an indicator, but it is more understandable that it takes awhile for new medical knowledge to get around). Edited February 21, 2020 by Calm
Calm Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, rpn said: 1990 in Washington DC wear next to skin. Man, I am starting to feel like I should have shown up at Church off and on for the past 40 years with a T-Shirt that said "underwear on top or under, your choice!" 3
filovirus Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 Male here. First time hearing this. However, as a long distance runner I occasionally wear compression under my g bottoms to help with muscle recovery. It's too hard to wear compression over them. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, bluebell said: I’ve accidentally worn a black bra to the temple. Not fun!! Yes and sometimes for various reasons one may not have a choice on which to wear. It's happened to my wife as well. That's exactly the usual complaint. I can't imagine what it would be like. And worst of all it is likely the male workers who will bring up the issue with someone. We guys are just so dumb about some things, but nothing that a little case of incontinence will not cure. 😲 Sometimes I guess the Lord has odd ways of teaching us empathy. It's just nobody's business and nobody should ever comment on it. Edited February 21, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
Garden Girl Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 10 hours 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. I was endowed in 1996 (Portland, OR), and this is the counsel we received when the Matron met with us prior to the session... And I've always followed that counsel, to this day... GG 1
mfbukowski Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Garden Girl said: I was endowed in 1996 (Portland, OR), and this is the counsel we received when the Matron met with us prior to the session... And I've always followed that counsel, to this day... GG Suppose you had a skin condition that prohibited that possibility. Would you then prohibit yourself from the temple and wearing garments? If you had a body cast or even some sort of braces on your legs, would you put your garments over them? Or would you just stop wearing them?
Popular Post rpn Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Posted February 21, 2020 12 hours ago, Calm said: Man, I am starting to feel like I should have shown up at Church off and on for the past 40 years with a T-Shirt that said "underwear on top or under, your choice!" I really think the teachings were about what happened with Adam and Eve when they were first clothed. Of course underwear happened after that and people had various experiences with underwear and the fit of temple garments. Do I think our Heavenly Parents mean for the commandments to make us physically miserable? Not for a minute. And I'd be surprised if any leader received a revelation that garments had to be next to skin at all times no matter what: no one has claimed that. So what temple workers should be conveying is that garments are to be worn next to skin, but any member should figure out for themselves how that accommodates when it is simply impossible for a member. AND that when such member does that , they need not feel the least bit bad or less than or unrighteous about having to make adjustments. The trouble is that for many years we only got the first counsel, without the second part. And the range of experiences has increased with various fabrics and allegergies/skin reactions and activities. I'm in the group that says everyone should do their best, and if wearing the garment next to the skin doesn't work for them, that is okay too. 5
pogi Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, Calm said: Man, I am starting to feel like I should have shown up at Church off and on for the past 40 years with a T-Shirt that said "underwear on top or under, your choice!" If underwear is worn on top, is it no longer under-wear? One of the great mysteries! Edited February 21, 2020 by pogi 1
Tacenda Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, rpn said: I really think the teachings were about what happened with Adam and Eve when they were first clothed. Of course underwear happened after that and people had various experiences with underwear and the fit of temple garments. Do I think our Heavenly Parents mean for the commandments to make us physically miserable? Not for a minute. And I'd be surprised if any leader received a revelation that garments had to be next to skin at all times no matter what: no one has claimed that. So what temple workers should be conveying is that garments are to be worn next to skin, but any member should figure out for themselves how that accommodates when it is simply impossible for a member. AND that when such member does that , they need not feel the least bit bad or less than or unrighteous about having to make adjustments. The trouble is that for many years we only got the first counsel, without the second part. And the range of experiences has increased with various fabrics and allegergies/skin reactions and activities. I'm in the group that says everyone should do their best, and if wearing the garment next to the skin doesn't work for them, that is okay too. I've read comments from women that their garments cause UTI's for many. So I guess they'll be able to maybe wear separate underwear underneath now.
Bernard Gui Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 20 hours 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, that depends...... 2
rockpond Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 My wife and I were counseled to wear the garments next to our skin. I was endowed in 1990, she was endowed in 1998. Not really an issue for me but I know she was happy to learn (a couple years ago) that she could wear things under the garment.
pogi Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, that depends...... Is that a diaper joke?
Bernard Gui Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 Just now, pogi said: Is that a diaper joke? Well, it depends..... 1
Recommended Posts