Jump to content

General Conference Predictions and Rumors


mtomm

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rongo said:

If a policy change directed members not to wear them at all any more, or only in the temple, then the reason behind it would probably dictate a desire not to have it be optional. The only real reason would be because it would be seen as "weird," and out of a desire to stamp out such uniquely "weird" things. I think there would also be a desire for there not to be a de facto caste system.

This really can't be compared to the over/under issue with women, because it is still supposed to be worn morning and night, throughout life, as instructed. 

If it ever happened, I'm sure it would be announced with the standard "this is not a change in doctrine, it's just a change in presentation or symbols." I think that would be a hard sell. 

How would anyone know if you continue to wear it all the time. It would be no one’s business just like over/under. But again, availability might become a problem. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

How would anyone know if you continue to wear it all the time. It would be no one’s business just like over/under. But again, availability might become a problem. 

It's pretty obvious with a white shirt (I wear one-piece --- nothing better! :) ).

I'm already stockpiled on those, because I think there won't be a market for that down the road. 

If the desire became to stamp garments out, it could be emphasized, and even sanctioned (i.e., if they were no longer authorized, then wearing them could be named a sin). 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, rongo said:

How serious are you about the bolded part? Because the Church has been surveying Millennials/GenZ about garments (including how much they like/don't like them in general, think they are weird, etc.). I don't think it's preposterous to think that they will be done away with, at least as far as "throughout your life" and "morning and night." 

What would happen to members who decide to keep wearing them? Would they be subject to discipline? 

It seems like all things that are floated as trial balloons in surveys (or are "piloted") eventually are implemented --- it's just a question of when.

I suspect it might be coming. I think it is less about the kids not liking them as much and more about the discomfort of members (young and old) who live in hotter environments and don’t live their lives in air conditioned indoors 95% of the time. There is also some precedent here. Joseph Smith put aside his garments before the martyrdom due to the heat if I remember correctly.

I don’t think there would be any discipline. I think they would state times that it must be worn and leave it up to members if they want to wear them more.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect it might be coming. I think it is less about the kids not liking them as much and more about the discomfort of members (young and old) who live in hotter environments and don’t live their lives in air conditioned indoors 95% of the time. There is also some precedent here. Joseph Smith put aside his garments before the martyrdom due to the heat if I remember correctly.

I don’t think there would be any discipline. I think they would state times that it must be worn and leave it up to members if they want to wear them more.

I suspect it might be coming, too. As long as I can still wear them and can teach my family of their importance, then in a way I don't care if the Church parts ways with them. But, it's also really frustrating to me when there are major changes (always with a conspicuous disclaimer that "these are not doctrinal changes, but are presentational to help people have a better experience") that do violence to the story and history. Would that involve no longer teaching that it was instituted with Adam (and what it represents)? Would the instruction about wearing it simply be changed, like with other changes ("we only wear it symbolically now")? 

There has already been a downgrading of explanations about protection (only temptation and evil now). My children know for themselves through some miracles we have experienced that physical protection is possible, and they hold that in great reverence. 

I think the great driver behind changes like this (several questions were devoted to it in surveys the Church did with Millennials/GenZ) is embarrassment about "weird" parts of Mormonism. 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, rongo said:

I suspect it might be coming, too. As long as I can still wear them and can teach my family of their importance, then in a way I don't care if the Church parts ways with them. But, it's also really frustrating to me when there are major changes (always with a conspicuous disclaimer that "these are not doctrinal changes, but are presentational to help people have a better experience") that do violence to the story and history. Would that involve no longer teaching that it was instituted with Adam (and what it represents)? Would the instruction about wearing it simply be changed, like with other changes ("we only wear it symbolically now")? 

There has already been a downgrading of explanations about protection (only temptation and evil now). My children know for themselves through some miracles we have experienced that physical protection is possible, and they hold that in great reverence. 

I think the great driver behind changes like this (several questions were devoted to it in surveys the Church did with Millennials/GenZ) is embarrassment about "weird" parts of Mormonism. 

Underwear serves a good purpose and underwear with symbols on them that symbolize good things are better I think than underwear with no symbols on them.  I would feel naked with no symbols on my underwear, and I like the symbols I have on mine.

I also would not want underwear that is shorter in the legs or arms than the underwear I usually wear.  More colors might be nice, though, like a military green or tan or black, with white still kept as a standard color.  And I prefer cotton more than animal skin.

So if there are going to be any more changes I hope the current options will still be retained.  And I like how they/we have managed to keep the prices down on our underwear options.  Calvin Klein and Fruit of the Loom are usually more expensive, and they don't even make them with the symbols I like on them.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I can’t imagine we would be punished for continuing to wear them. I mean things have changed over the last few years and how people wear their garments is up to them and not some random member who thinks they know better (bra over, under that kind of thing). However, if they were no longer required, then availability could become a problem. 

Funny thing is I have been trying to quit wearing mine, but it's like my second skin to wear them. Wouldn't that be ironic if I get disciplined for wearing them, haha. I highly doubt the garments won't be a thing.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I will definitely eat crow and admit I'm wrong of it were to happen. My experience is that these guys never apologize (and I recall one saying so not so long ago). 

Maybe I took it more seriously than the devout LDS, and he may not feel the need. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, rongo said:

It's pretty obvious with a white shirt (I wear one-piece --- nothing better! :) ).

I'm already stockpiled on those, because I think there won't be a market for that down the road. 

If the desire became to stamp garments out, it could be emphasized, and even sanctioned (i.e., if they were no longer authorized, then wearing them could be named a sin). 

I’ve never thought about it from that perspective. I hope it doesn’t come to that. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, rongo said:

I wear one-piece --- nothing better!

I'm so not surprised!

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think it is less about the kids not liking them as much and more about the discomfort of members (young and old) who live in hotter environments and don’t live their lives in air conditioned indoors 95% of the time.

Having lived around less-affluent Church members in four different tropical locations across two different hemispheres, I feel confident that the only people worried about the 'discomfort' of garments for poorer Church members are affluent Church members in wealthy nations with ready access to air conditioning. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Having lived around less-affluent Church members in four different tropical locations across two different hemispheres, I feel confident that the only people worried about the 'discomfort' of garments for poorer Church members are affluent Church members in wealthy nations with ready access to air conditioning. 

That has not been my experience interacting with members from these nations.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm so not surprised!

Having lived around less-affluent Church members in four different tropical locations across two different hemispheres, I feel confident that the only people worried about the 'discomfort' of garments for poorer Church members are affluent Church members in wealthy nations with ready access to air conditioning. 

Grumbling about the discomfort of garments does seem like a first-world thing. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World_problem

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 9/22/2021 at 2:23 PM, Tacenda said:

I predict Elder Holland will apologize or fix what he said at BYU. I hope he apologizes about bringing up Matt Easton's valedictorian's speech. 

If Elder Holland had any public apology to make about what he said at BYU, I think we would have heard it by now and his talk would not still be up in its entirety on the Church’s Newsroom and Facebook pages. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Grumbling about the discomfort of garments does seem like a first-world thing. 

My West African housemate sleeps fully clothed regardless of the temperature: garments, socks, jeans, and a polo shirt with all the buttons done up. He thinks I'm nuts because I sleep only in my garments. My good mate's Filipino father-in-law has been stuck here for the past two years because of Covid. He wears a jacket even when the temperature is in the 30s (that's 86-102F for Americans). When I was studying in the American Midwest, my tutor from Java wore thermals year-round to try to stay warm enough. I've literally never once heard a local Saint in the tropics complain about garments being hot or uncomfortable. I have heard whingeing from Americans and other wealthy expats who live in air-conditioned houses, work in air-conditioned offices, shop in air-conditioned malls, and drive around (or get driven around) in air-conditioned cars.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am sure it is. After all in the first world they grumble about masks as if it was an assault on their basic freedom in a full-scale pandemic.

Those still aren't the people I think would cause such a change.

Well so far, first-worlders are the only ones I’ve seen agitating for it. 

Link to comment

This is starting to remind me of when I went to get a bra fitting.  She couldn't find a bra that fit me and the best fit was painful.  She told me that "if you want to look pretty you have to be willing for it to come with some pain".

Does it really matter if garments are a first world problem? Does the Lord really think we should just be ok with a little pain/discomfort not to live covenants made, but to wear reminders  of covenants made?

If my local temp is in the 40s C, instead of 30s, can I be frustrated with an extra layer of clothing even if I'm in the AC 95% of the time?

I don't get this.  Sometimes people have a difficult time with things we, personally, might like or be ok with so we complain about them being complainers?  

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm so not surprised!

Having lived around less-affluent Church members in four different tropical locations across two different hemispheres, I feel confident that the only people worried about the 'discomfort' of garments for poorer Church members are affluent Church members in wealthy nations with ready access to air conditioning. 

Agreed.  These are the little addictions of the first world that weaken us mentally at least and then we become actually unable to deal with the little discomforts we might not even notice, had we been raised without them being fixed for us.  Just call the repair man, and all our problems disappear 

And yet a day is coming when even having clean water could become an issue.  That already happens in disaster zones 

We have to get tougher to take on what is coming, even maybe just locally.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If Elder Holland had any public apology to make about what he said at BYU, I think we would have heard it by now and his talk would not still be up in its entirety on the Church’s Newsroom and Facebook pages. 

And you are in a position to know how this stuff works! :)

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...