New garment style

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
Post Reply
User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 5148
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

New garment style

Post by nibbler »

Just in case you're out of the loop, there's a new garment top style where they've reduced the length of the sleeves. It's not quite a tank top but the sleeves are significantly shorter.

These are being billed as a new style but my wife got garments like that a long time ago. They were discontinued. I guess this means that they're continuing them.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/10/1 ... -climates/

I checked online where you order more garments and the shorter sleeves will also be available for men tops. I say will be available because the church's website says they will be available a year from now.

There was some controversy over this. People discovered that if you log into the clothing site and you set it up to certain countries in Africa these reduced sleeve garments were an option but if you set it up to be in the USA the garments were not an option.

I'm guessing that's why they suddenly made an appearance on the clothing site for USA members, even if it's just a "coming in Q4 2025" placeholder. Still, it's my understanding that the garments are already available to members in Africa but members in the USA will have to wait one year. This has led many people to ask, "What gives?" Some want to go as far as arranging where they buy the new garments, have them shipped somewhere in Africa to satisfy the website rules, and then get someone in Africa to ship them to the USA.

I'm guessing the new styles were pilot tested in one region to gauge demand and comfort, word got out, and the church had to announce things before they were ready. They were caught flatfooted.

I solved the garment top in hot and humid climates problem by not wearing the top at all during the summer. This new offering won't change that but it's nice to see concessions being made for people that feel constrained by only approaching garments within the current set of rules.

Years ago a sleeveless garment was verboten, now they have the green light. Today not wearing the top during the summer is verboten but I'm living the future where it's approved.
If you erase the mistakes of your past, you would also erase all the wisdom of your present. Remember the lesson, not the disappointment.
— I dunno
Roy
Posts: 7306
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: New garment style

Post by Roy »

I had assumed that this would be universally cheered but such is not the case:

response from some members to the announcement-

"This really bothers me. What is the big deal of a cap sleeve? I don't see how it is that uncomfortable. If anything we need to be increasing modesty, rather than decreasing."

"I live in hot/humid Florida but never go without my garments. If I go to the beach, I take my swimsuit and change there."

"I've lived in very hot places and my garments were always fine."

Thankfully, this group is a tiny minority and those responses seem to trend from the older generation. I guess there are members of the old guard in the female variety as well. As Old Timer is fond of saying, "people are gonna' people."

Most were either praising the announcement or asking for it to be available in their area.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
Roy
Posts: 7306
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: New garment style

Post by Roy »

nibbler wrote: 18 Oct 2024, 07:03 Years ago a sleeveless garment was verboten, now they have the green light.
It feels like we are in a really weird space right now. Sleeveless garment is ok if you live in certain regions or if you have a contact there that can get you some. Sleeveless garments are projected to be available in the USA but not for a year. Why the delay? I can see logistical hurdles of needing to ramp up production but a whole year?

I was talking with my wife about this last night and I asked why not just cut the sleeves off the current ones. I was met with hesitation because we have been told not to modify the garment. I argued that I understand this instruction to be for the purpose of not allowing individuals to wear outfits that couldn't be worn with the garment. Now that there are approved versions of the garment that could be worn with those outfits (just that it isn't available in our particular region for a year) then what is the harm of modifying your garment from one approved version to another approved version?

I guess it reminds me of some discussion we've had here about being children of God transitioning to adults of God. Are we able to take initiative to step forward into the grey areas of faith and work out our own way or do we stay with the group until the group is given permission to move? I suppose this also reminds me of the analogy between settlers and explorers. Both are useful, both are needed.

Would cutting the sleeves off of my garments be an "explorer" action to take? Is there a place in the church for explorers?
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
AmyJ
Posts: 1373
Joined: 27 Jul 2017, 05:50

Re: New garment style

Post by AmyJ »

Roy wrote: 23 Oct 2024, 08:32
nibbler wrote: 18 Oct 2024, 07:03 Years ago a sleeveless garment was verboten, now they have the green light.
It feels like we are in a really weird space right now. Sleeveless garment is ok if you live in certain regions or if you have a contact there that can get you some. Sleeveless garments are projected to be available in the USA but not for a year. Why the delay? I can see logistical hurdles of needing to ramp up production but a whole year?
It's a weird body-policing space between "shortened sleeve (but modest)" garment tops and "the yoga pant rebuke of 2024".

Also, the contrast between the single & sleeveless days in the 1950's and 1960's (check out BYU yearbooks for pics) and the "sleeved wear for toddler girls" of the 1990's and 2000's that I experienced with myself, my sisters, and my daughters.
Roy wrote: 23 Oct 2024, 08:32 I was talking with my wife about this last night and I asked why not just cut the sleeves off the current ones. I was met with hesitation because we have been told not to modify the garment. I argued that I understand this instruction to be for the purpose of not allowing individuals to wear outfits that couldn't be worn with the garment. Now that there are approved versions of the garment that could be worn with those outfits (just that it isn't available in our particular region for a year) then what is the harm of modifying your garment from one approved version to another approved version?
In my case, the hesitation would be the sewing/hemming the sleeves post-shortening - but I am not very domestic, and that sounds daunting to me:)

But we were warned about the "what is the harm" slippery slope into disobedience since back in the good old retrenchment 1990's+.
Roy wrote: 23 Oct 2024, 08:32 I guess it reminds me of some discussion we've had here about being children of God transitioning to adults of God. Are we able to take initiative to step forward into the grey areas of faith and work out our own way or do we stay with the group until the group is given permission to move? I suppose this also reminds me of the analogy between settlers and explorers. Both are useful, both are needed.

Would cutting the sleeves off of my garments be an "explorer" action to take? Is there a place in the church for explorers?
Culturally, women are charged with being "the settlers" - and anchoring their spouses and children to the faith. That is the expectation. That is in the "nurturing" job description. It is a "one size fits all" model handed down from Brigham Young to Ezra Taft Benson to today (except when it isn't - and never was).

So in the "explorers and settlers" paradigm - the church needs women to "settle" more then the church needs women to "explore". And to be fair, a good midlife crisis for women forces her "to explore" more then to "settle" (which the church culture has little wisdom about), and there are a lot of women with the courage to become explorers rather then staying in a settler box.

I have explored more often then not while pretending to be an upright, self-righteous quasi-settler. I know the weight of the cultural pressure "to settle" while not being capable of doing a good job of it.
Roy
Posts: 7306
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: New garment style

Post by Roy »

Honestly, the mental picture of the explorer that has always come to mind for me has been of a mountain man. Thanks for helping me analyze my cultural assumptions and the extra expectations that come along with gender roles.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
AmyJ
Posts: 1373
Joined: 27 Jul 2017, 05:50

Re: New garment style

Post by AmyJ »

Roy wrote: 24 Oct 2024, 09:47 Honestly, the mental picture of the explorer that has always come to mind for me has been of a mountain man. Thanks for helping me analyze my cultural assumptions and the extra expectations that come along with gender roles.
You're welcome:)
Thank you for not filtering my ideas through the "harpy" lens:)

I do know that priesthood authority is used to anchor men into being "settlers" as well and ensuring that they don't "stray" too much - I just get the surface outlines of the dynamic and do not feel qualified to provide more insights about it though. Joseph Smith was an explorer (his "exploration of theology" is what got the church restoration started after all), so that backs up the social acceptance of "male explorers" conceptually.

I read a comment on a LDS blog that basically stated, "The restoration wouldn't have happened at all (at least the key doctrine points) without Emma (and Emma's connections)". And it checks that key features of the church organization are attributable/memorable because of Emma (Relief Society, Word of Wisdom, Polygamy, Book of Mormon). Also, the main schism between the Brighamites and other groups is in part because Brigham and Emma fought (though I suspect that Brigham in essence picked a fight with Emma and "won" the loyalty of the saints enough to relocate to Utah).

I love the "A-Team". I love how clearly there is the "Mastermind", the "Face", the "Muscle", the "Crazy".

Church history is taught as if Joseph Smith was "the Mastermind" , Emma was "the Face" aka supporter, etc.
This offhand comment made me take a second look as if Emma was "the Mastermind" and Joseph was a highly vocal, highly speculative "Face".
Post Reply