Page 6 of 10

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 08:20
by cwald
Shawn wrote:
cwald wrote:It's creepy this is even an issue. ... we're taking about underwear rules and requirements.
We're not talking merely of briefs, boxers, panties, and bras. For many people, garments mean more than that and this is a serious issue.
I understand that. It is why it is so creepy to me.

It is the most cult like practice the church continues to do today, IMO, and it needs to end.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 09:31
by SamBee
Forgotten_Charity wrote:It's been a struggle during the spring and summer in the hot and humid area i live especially once the dew point gets past 70. Ive gone from bot seating hardly since the endowment to 3 changes a day because if sweat. Cotten, Corbin, mesh, and the ones I refuse to wear anymore --the dreaded extra support- worse them bicycle shorts.

Cotten--too itchy--makes skin even dryer and more itchy , Corbin to hot but feels better, mesh works ok but still needs changing a few times a day, extra support-- your own personal sauna, complete with movement regulation.

I've worn better, but at a cost of $20-40. Hope there are better options in the future for hot and humid places.
Yes, roughly 70' C for me too. And that's not that hot. Granted I live in a temperate country, but many of you live in places which are continental (meaning temperature extremes), near deserts or in the southern states.

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 14:53
by Shawn
I have a lot to say about this issue and I'm going to jump around from one point to another.

What if God meant for us to wear garments only in the temple at at other special times, like the early saints? Maybe it just evolved over time and "It is not known precisely why, how, or when [the practice of wearing garments all the time] began in the Church..."

Handbook 2 states "They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn..." It's annoying that they specified working in the yard, which can be a very hot and messy job. hawkgrrrl said "OK for cold places like Utah, but terrible in places like AZ, FL, or Singapore." Well, it's been 100 degrees here in Salt Lake!

The idea of "extended foreplay" is awesome. Thanks for that idea, Ray! On that By Common Consent article, someone named Amy commented "Well, I guess if my activity is 'sleeping naked with my husband,' that can’t 'reasonably be done' with garments on, so I’m good." Haha. I'm really thinking of bringing that up with my wife.

I would really like to quit wearing garments, but I'm worried it would be a mistake and I don't dare to. It's possible that God really does want the saints of this dispensation to wear garments as we are taught by church leaders.

Handbook 2 says endowed members "have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment." There is no language in the endowment regarding such a covenant unless the initiatory is considered part of the endowment, which might be the case.

In the initiatory, the instruction is to wear the garment "throughout your life." It could be that completing the endowment constitutes at least a tacit covenant to do so. I decided to find out exactly what "throughout" means, and it doesn't support my desire to quit wearing garments. MW definitions include:

"during the whole time or action : from beginning to end"
"all the way from one end to the other of : in or to every part of"
"during the whole course or period of"

That's all, for now.

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 16:09
by Roy
Shawn wrote:I decided to find out exactly what "throughout" means, and it doesn't support my desire to quit wearing garments. MW definitions include:

"during the whole time or action : from beginning to end"
"all the way from one end to the other of : in or to every part of"
"during the whole course or period of"

That's all, for now.
Good point Shawn. Except I don't know anyone who wears garments "throughout" their life according to this definition. 99.9% of endowed Mormons remove the garment for some purpose or another. So now it is no longer a black and white proposition between total compliance and none. It becomes about how many different variations of garment wearing are possible while still maintaining reverence in each individual's heart for sacred covenants made. We have quite a number of approved variations with cotton, or mesh, long johns, silky (forgive me I don't know all the options). I assume that these options are sufficient for the bulk of members but not for all. How do we respond to an individual requesting "individual adaptation"?

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 17:58
by nibbler
Shawn wrote:Well, it's been 100 degrees here in Salt Lake!
It's a dry heat. ;)

But seriously though. Some areas get up to 100 degrees with about 45% humidity. Or even 80 degrees with 80% humidity... you can toss the heat index out the window because sometimes that 80/80 can be worse. Sweat doesn't evaporate and there's no cooling effect.

Not that this is a "who has it worse" competition or anything. :angel:

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 07:25
by Forgotten_Charity
nibbler wrote:
Shawn wrote:Well, it's been 100 degrees here in Salt Lake!
It's a dry heat. ;)

But seriously though. Some areas get up to 100 degrees with about 45% humidity. Or even 80 degrees with 80% humidity... you can toss the heat index out the window because sometimes that 80/80 can be worse. Sweat doesn't evaporate and there's no cooling effect.

Not that this is a "who has it worse" competition or anything. :angel:
There are some places including a lot where I spend my time in that get to 100-130F, 60-100 humidity and 70-84 dew point.
I spend slot of time searching for and testing different clothing.
Rayon(hopefully a garment will be made from that and reversible fabrics to reverse when it gets soaked will also be used latter in garments. But for now the primary focus is on the outer clothing until they send time consulting athletic and work clothing manufactures for extreme environments. Not a problem fora my people but for those that do face them a very big concern is clothing material.

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 12:39
by Shawn
Roy wrote:Good point Shawn. Except I don't know anyone who wears garments "throughout" their life according to this definition. 99.9% of endowed Mormons remove the garment for some purpose or another. So now it is no longer a black and white proposition between total compliance and none. It becomes about how many different variations of garment wearing are possible while still maintaining reverence in each individual's heart for sacred covenants made.
You're right. It's not a simple black and white situation and there's room for all sorts of individual adaptation.

I reckon "throughout" could mean during the whole time of life with a few exceptions and I should put the garment back on as soon as possible. I'm not excited about that definition because I really would like to quit wearing them except when I attend the temple and maybe church meetings. Also, I'm not saying anyone else needs to adopt that definition. Heck, Merriam-Webster isn't a religious authority.

I concede the point regarding dry vs. humid heat.

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 21:34
by Notchet
GITO (Garments in Temple ONLY) Temple worship is largely symbolic...the garment nicely compliments what happens in the temple. Why not limit the wearing of the garment to temple worship, and simply include the garment as part of the peculiar garb worn in the temple? Temples are all air conditioned, making all our previous discussions about climate moot. GITO seems like such a no brainer...and a change I see eventually happening. What say you?

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 21:49
by Curt Sunshine
I would like to see that (and I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was more than one apostle who would support it) . . . but I'm not putting any money on it.

Having said that, I might continue to wear it like I do now, since it doesn't cause huge issues for me and I love the symbolism.

Re: are garments getting your panties in a bunch, too?

Posted: 17 Jul 2014, 22:14
by Ilovechrist77
Since we're on the subject, I used to wear mesh garments in the summer, but I heard the church doesn't make those anymore. You see, summers out here in Illinois can get pretty hot and humid. What type of garments are good for hot weather? :problem: