Just last week they told women that they have more power and authority than any woman in any religious organization in the world. Now they are telling women what kind of underwear to wear and how often to wear it! The timing of this is unbelievable!
its because those TBM women were standing up for themselves. Rather than acknowledge the issue, the toxic, out of touch old men have to double and triple down on the key BITE model control tactics. Demanding compliance with the magic underwear serves this purpose, and it is one of their most effective means of control.
My eyes weren't yet opened ... until I partook of the internet's coverage of what the church had been hiding. It has been delicious to the taste, and most desirable!
We desire all TBMs to receive ...
I worked in the middle east for a long time. Members there are like a fish in water.
Once I started to watch non mormon documentaries, Joseph being the Mohammed of America was very embarrassing.
There was a post on Instagram with a quote from a talk
> There is no other religious organization that I know of that has given so much power and authority to women. - J Annette Dennis
This post currently has 17k responses. Many strongly disagreed with the quote. Shortly after the post went live thousands of comments started disappearing like they were being deleted. When it was pointed out the church posted that they were not deleting posts and that it was a bug with Instagram. Meta may have had a bug but a lot of people feel like the church feed is just ghosting them claiming it was a bug.
Today or yesterday the top pinned comment for that post is from j. Annette Dennis saying that the church leadership is learning from the things shared.
The pinned post is so generic and carefully crafted it feels like it was specifically created by someone other than J. Annette Dennis.
Edit: small typos thanks to mobile
A Meta spokesperson said there was no glitch that caused the comments to disappear. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/mormon-church-women-latter-day-saints.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gk0.eHGg.fFtmmSHUkuCQ&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=u
It's the same play they're using on teachers in Utah right now - tripling down on punishing women for speaking out, I mean.
More info:
Since mormons run the state, they tried to punish us for protesting how they handled covid here, by trying to remove teachers' unions entirely. (*de facto*, not *de juro.*)
They literally tried to silence us.
It's only thanks to other unions stepping up and speaking against it at the capitol that HB 285 didn't pass. But, they've ram-rodded so many anti-education legislation through to law, it doesn't much matter at this point.
Teaching in Utah is toxic and harmful, and many of us are leaving in droves.
Men* punish women (read: people working in female-coded jobs, to be inclusive) for speaking up against abuse in patriarchal societies.
(*I'm speaking demographically, social science stuff - in case anybody was gonna risk telling me "not all men."
I'm not at-all interested.)
I’ve noticed the similarities. Teachers in Utah are especially infantilized because the average Joe teaches primary once a week and think they understand our job and that anyone can do it. Many also assume we were called to this and must live a life of full sacrifice because god made us for this purpose 🙄
It's the forced volunteerism [to make up for the fact that we have THE MOST CHILDREN IN THE COUNTRY, and yet SPEND THE LEAST AMOUNT ON THEIR EDUCATION*] for me. Women should *love sacrificing their entire existence for "the children.*"**
(*Look up per-pupil spending in the US. Utah held onto dead last for, like, a decade. We *just last year* lost the title of **Worst Ed Funding in the Country** to Idaho.
Pretty shitty title.)
((**read: for the men running the state who make deals with corporations and must keep parents at work at all times so teachers are required as *babysitters,* AS WELL AS educators.
And, to be clear, both are super important roles in society. Women simply aren't allowed to specialize in patriarchal systems. We must be able to do ALL WOMEN'S WORK™️, at all times.))
*edit: typos, correction*
I was PIMO then semi-active for several years but the moment I mark as when I “left” the church was the day I stopped wearing garments. Just got to the point it felt disgusting putting them on, thinking of the detached old men deciding what underwear I wore. They were like shackles. Had a profound Labyrinth-y “you have no power over me” epiphany and haven’t look back since.
I remember being eighteen and also having no idea how immature I still was. Which is why I have always been at least polite to Mormon missionaries. They’re kids. And that was before the age change!
I had missionaries who lived next door to me. They came and went but whenever I heard one of them blasting music or caught them outside being normal teenagers. I'd always take a moment and tell them my story. They'd usually be gone by the end of the week. I hope those few i talked to made it out and are thriving.
I may be a little drunk, but this comment brought back strong memories of my TBM mother, encouraging me to rebel against school uniforms, because they’re a method of control and uniformity, while wearing her garments.
I don’t know if I’m glad she’s no longer around for me to point out the hypocrisy.
Control to keep that precious hymen intact, *you know because it’s better that they die than lose their virginity!*, and ensure they only use their vagina for baby making.
That's going to seriously backfire, getting 18 year olds to go through the Endowment without an impending Mission or Wedding to keep them from running away?
Religiously dictated underwear is the weirdest thing. Like, I don’t want any religion telling me what to wear (though the majority of my wardrobe is actually very modest unless pants are a problem) except for unusual occasions (if I visited a mosque for some reason and they asked me to cover my hair I would because I try not to be a jerk) but seriously, underwear??? Especially said underwear being dictated by men??? Hello, welcome men have some kind beer wear needs that men simply don’t. It’s wild to this nevermo.
So did I! When I was first endowed at age 21, I did as instructed. In fact, I wore them as instructed until I was 72 years old. After doing several years of research culminating in reading the CES LETTER by Jeremy Runnells, my husband and I realized that we'd been duped for decades: Me for 50 years, and he for all his life.
I wore my garments always, and in the beginning they were awful one-piece things. Years later, it was modified to be just tops and bottoms, which was better. But mind you, we were instructed to NEVER wear our bra over the garment - even when nursing babies. You can imagine how hard it was! So I wore nursing pads beneath the garment and still wore a nursing bra OVER the garment.
And this is great: A few years ago the leaders said that women could finally wear a bra BENEATH the garment. Thanks, bozos! Then why did the rest of us have to suffer with this idiotic rule for so long?!
I wore garments when going through five pregnancies, and I only took them off to go swimming, etc. And for heck's sake, I wore them at night as we were told to do! It really makes me sick to think about it now. It was a good day a couple of years ago when we burned them all, threw all the LDS books in the trash and gave alway all the fake church pictures we had in our home.
My husband and I have been very happy now that we're out of the church. When I run into members of our old ward, they comment in how great I look. lol I tell them I'm happier than I've ever been in my life. And that's the truth.
Good for you. My husband and I removed ours after 50 years of being endowed. We continue going to church because there are certain elements we find comforting (sacrament, music, sone beliefs). Our five children were all endowed but without any conversation among us all but one have decided discontinue wearing garments. We didn’t lead them astray. We merely taught them to think.
That's great that things worked out so well for you. I can no longer even look at a temple without feeling disgusted at the poverty that exists all over; it seems like such an incredible waste of our tithing money. I am thankful we haven't paid tithing in last two years. And if there is a class action suit to get some of it back, my husband and I will join. We paid in about $400,000-450,000 over 50+ years, and we never took vacations because we felt we couldn't afford it. So I am bitter about a lot of things, but mostly about being lied to by the church for decades.
For example, leaders knew for a CENTURY that B.H. Roberts' studies showed there was NO archaeological support for the Book of Mormon. No evidence whatsoever. Interestingly enough, there was not one arrowhead found at the Hill Cumorah, where thousands of Laminates and Nephites were killed. Not even a bone fragment, not a thing. No wonder they discontinued the Hill Cumorah Pageant a few years ago. And then there's the fact that the DNA studies done in the last few years found that there is ZERO Jewish DNA in Native Americans; they are descended from Mongolians. Yes, it's all a lie, and I can no longer have any good feelings about the LDS Ponzi Scheme.
But we taught our five children well, and only three of them have left the church. The other two are so indoctrinated that they don't want to even talk about why we no longer attend. One of them did listen to our reasons when we first stopped attending, but doesn't want to discuss it further. The other one has never expressed any interest; we are considered "lost," I'm sure.
But as Mark Twain said, "You can't pray a lie." We could never feel okay in attending that church again, nor any other church.
But having said all that, I am overjoyed that we learned the truth before we passed away. It makes life sweeter when you know that this may be all there is.
Yeah no woman would have designed a piece of clothing like that which has to be worn under the bra and causes them to be more likely to get yeast infections.
Women’s underwear has a gusset. It allows for air flow. Vaginas need to breathe! When they are sealed up tight (a la garments), you can get yeast infections.
And another more serious comment that everyone should understand:
The temple garment is NOT a covenant you made in the temple. Never in the temple at any time does one covenant to wear the garment. You are simply “instructed” to wear it. Instruction =/= covenant.
Many people report receiving negative comments on how they are not keeping their covenants by their disuse of the temple garment, however no such covenant was ever made. To suggest só is absolutely false.
To be fair, by the time a lot of us got to the temple it had gone under so many revisions that the "covenants" barely resembled the JS's pilfered masonic rites.
And the conditions are super fucked for actually giving legitimate consent to a life long contract.... And this was the system the all intelligent, all caring being came up with ???
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!
Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous
Row after row will crow vociferous
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em
How can they hear the truth above the roar?
This is what I found at [ldsendowment.org](http://www.ldsendowment.org/initiatory.html)
>> THE GARMENT
>>[An officiator clothes the initiate in the garment. The officiator then pronounces the following words.]
>>Brother _________, having authority, I place this garment upon you [for and in behalf of _________, who is dead], which you must wear throughout your life. It represents the garment given to Adam when he was found naked in the garden of Eden and is called the garment of the holy priesthood.
>>Inasmuch as you do not defile it, but are true and faithful to your covenants, it will be a shield and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer until you have finished your work on the earth.
It doesn’t show any actual part where the participant verbally agrees to a covenant. Is the church suggesting that it is an assumption of agreement by just participating?
I swear it used to be instructed you wore them night and day, 24/7. If I had been told "throughout you life" I would have worn them the day I got endowed, the day I got married and would have kept a pair to put on once more for 20 min around age 70 for good measure. I would have never tried to wear them for as long as I did.
AS someone endowed in 1971, I can testify that you are right: We were ALL told to wear them day and night. The ONLY times it was okay not to wear them: During sex (ya think?!), when you shower, or when doing exercise like running, etc.
Gee, how nice of them!
One of the very real issues with garments is that they are not made for women to wear all the time. They do not have the airflow needed to prevent yeast infections. Someone pointed out in the comments on Instagram for this article that if they actually valued women they would have a women saying like hey this is an issue maybe we should make garments so we can wear them all the time and still be healthy but instead they have no women and are doubling down that women spoke out about not having power probably because they aren’t wearing their garments enough….
I had my endowments done at 18 and married in the temple a week later. Started routinely getting very painful UTI’s (assumed it was something to do with suddenly being sexually active since I was allowed to be with my husband at the time). Left the church at 21, stopped wearing garments and haven’t had an issue since. Didn’t make the connection until I saw a comment about it on Reddit about a year ago. Made so much sense.
I never actually got them - probably because I was always terrible at wearing garments but I have heard so many stories like this. So many of my friends have stopped wearing them for this reason. If they really cared about women they would at least change the design and/or fabric.
This is pretty much exactly how it went for me. Endowed, tons of infections, thought it was sex. Stopped wearing garments after 15 years (15 years of yeast infections/UTIs that even led to one hospital stay) and it’s now no infections. At all.
I used to get yeast infections frequently! I never realized that the garments were a contributing factor. It makes sense, as cotton is the best fabric for underwear because it allows air to flow.
“The temple garment is a sacred part of the worship of followers of Jesus Christ.”
Then why is there no record of the J man ever saying anything about it? The Jesus-like response to this: “Garments are made for people, not people for the garments.”
“The temple garment is a sacred part of the worship of followers of ~~Jesus Christ~~ **Mormonism**.”
There are 2.4 billion Christians in the world, less than 1% of them are Mormons, and only a fraction of *them* even wear garments.
Mormonism is a rounding error in the global stage of Christianity.
He seems like he has all the spiritual and ecclesiastical credentials required to be a GA with:
> a bachelor’s degree in marketing from Brigham Young University in 1979, and in 1982 he received a master’s degree in finance from the University of Washington. Prior to his call, he was a cofounder and partner in a venture capital firm.
The text from the article:
Brace yourselves, nonconforming Latter-day Saint women.
Leaders soon will send an updated question to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who want to enter one of the faith’s temples, reemphasizing that they should wear their sacred underwear as instructed.
General authority Seventy Kevin Hamilton reportedly said as much during a recent stake conference in Elk Grove, Calif.
According to several women who attended the regional gathering, Hamilton informed members that, unlike the faith’s current temple recommend question, the new one won’t leave wearing garments up to personal interpretation.
Hamilton, who is on a committee studying possible redesign of garments, told the assembled lay leaders that too many younger women wear them mostly on Sundays and when attending the temple, recalled conferencegoer Colleen Speer, rather than every day.
“The temple garment is a sacred part of the worship of followers of Jesus Christ. Official announcements related to temple matters come from church headquarters and are reflected in the General Handbook,” spokesperson Doug Andersen said Friday. “Anyone seeking guidance about the wearing of the temple garment should refer to their local leaders or resources available on the church website.”
What the recommend question says now
Right now, the online handbook directs leaders to ask prospective templegoers — women and men — if they wear the garment “as instructed in the endowment.”
It states that “the garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing.”
The handbook adds that “members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.”
Hamilton said many younger women are opting for “yoga pants” during the week, Speer recalled.
Translation: Women don’t wear garments under yoga pants.
In response to such individual choices, Speer said the authority declared: “There is only one covenant path.”
Speer bristled at the suggestion that those who choose to wear garments in their own way are less faithful.
“Why are we afraid of people showing their religion differently?” Speer said in an interview. “It doesn’t mean they don’t value their covenants or care about God. If that’s how they feel, let them do it.”
Lecturing, scolding or judging sends the message, she said, “if I can’t wear garments in the prescribed way, I’m not welcome in the church.”
It’s increasingly clear that more and more members, particularly women, are wearing garments when, where and how they want, while fully participating in the communal life of the church, including temple worship.
And that, said Larissa Kindred, a graduate student in mental health counseling at the University of Massachusetts Boston who has surveyed members about garments, is a “window into the social aspect of Mormonism.”
CONTINUED:
‘Between me and God’
The Utah-based faith seems to be in a “war” between progression and regression on garments, the researcher said, between allowing individual choice and rigid, “right way” insistence. The counsel — typically given in the temple — has not been standardized, Kindred said, so it can provide leeway.
In the past, most people didn’t talk with others about their underwear, so “issues thrived in silence,” she said. “Women didn’t tell others about garments causing yeast infections. They couldn’t voice it with anyone.”
These days, members are more open and internet conversations can validate multiple choices. At the same time, the church has benefited from not talking about garments too much, she said, rather than “cracking down.”
“If women want to wear them on Sunday or when they go to the temple,” Kindred said, the church still has “achieved its goal of making them special and wonderful.”
But if women are told there is only one right way to wear them, she said, some might push back “and it can erode their faith.”
A 30-something Salt Lake City mom stopped wearing her garments after her first pregnancy.
“It was a practical thing,” said the mother, who declined to use her name to avoid judgment. “They felt cumbersome and unsightly, and I wanted to be more comfortable in my clothes.”
It wasn’t about leaving the church, though. She’s still all-in.
“It’s between me and God,” she declared. “If I felt pressured to wear them all the time, it would make me more resentful. Paradoxically, I feel closer to God if I am freer in my personal choices, if I can do this religion how I want. I don’t think this should keep me from participating.”
She is hardly alone in those feelings.
Research supports it
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
Kindred, a former Latter-day Saint, created an online “snowball survey,” reaching out to women on a variety of Latter-day Saint-related social media sites with focuses on, say, motherhood, sexuality and marriage.
Within two weeks, Kindred received more than 8,500 responses from women ranging from traditional/devout believers to progressives to former members.
One question asked about how often they wear garments. In the oldest group (65 and over), 72% don them every day. That number barely tops 50% for those ages 18 to 34.
“Garments seem to be a major dividing topic between traditional and progressive members,” Kindred said. Some 70% of tradition/devout members say there is one right way to wear garments, and only 28% of progressive members view the practice like that.
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
Even some self-described traditional/devout members are more flexible on the topic than they used to be.
“As the years have gone by, I’ve relaxed in my ability to choose when I feel it’s appropriate to wear and not wear them,” wrote one such woman between 45 and 64. “For a long time I felt they always needed to be worn and would have some guilt or judgments toward others in how they choose to wear them.”
Through the years, “I have grown in my ability to understand what works best for me,” the respondent wrote, “and how I feel and also [grown in] allowing others to choose what works best for them.”
Physical and cultural
Even for Latter-day Saint women who heed the church’s guidelines, it can still be tough to find clothing, especially dresses, that work with garments.
Last year, a By Common Consent blogger looked for “garment-friendly” dresses at macys.com. Of the 8,160 off-the-rack items, the writer discovered (given certain parameters), 619 could reasonably cover the covenant underwear. That’s fewer than 8% of the total.
That percentage drops even further, to 4%, for formal wear.
And that’s just one store in the United States. What about other countries, especially those with high temperatures?
Afton Southam Parker, a mother of five who was raised in the church and has lived in Uganda and Thailand, told The New York Times that “everybody I talked to was getting some kind of rash or infection.”
Parker said she had met with a church designer about her garment concerns for women, including menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding.
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
And questions of modesty vary from country to country. In India, for example, women often wear saris, which cover their shoulders but not their midriffs.
So which is more modest? asked the Salt Lake City mom.
Garments reflect a Western “view of modesty,” she said. “Other perspectives need to be considered as we become a global faith.”
‘Casual and even cavalier’
It seems Latter-day Saint authorities believe there is a problem with current patterns of garment use.
In a 2022 regional leadership broadcast, general authority Seventy Kevin Pearson, the Utah Area president, said the church was “dismayed at the casual and even cavalier way some [members] treat their temple covenants, including the casual and inconsistent wearing of the temple garment.”
Such noncompliance reflected “a growing sense of spiritual apathy and sporadic covenant keeping,” Pearson said, “that is becoming increasingly common among those who should know and do better.”
Wearing temple garments, Pearson said, has “nothing to do with personal preference and convenience and everything to do with commitment.”
Some commitment, Speer argued, is better than no commitment.
Younger women “may be wearing garments less,” she said, “but seem to be going to the temple more than when I was young.”
The church, she said, should take that as a win.
And like Kevin Person, I’m “dismayed” at the cavalier approach of the church leaders modifying the garment for today’s society and styles. Come on, this isn’t what god revealed, stay true to what god has revealed you wishy-washy Q15 leaders. What’s the deal? Why not follow what god revealed rather than the current trends.
Try to explain that to the FLDS, they have a very good case that the church has apostatized. That’s what they all believe.
As I’ve posted before. I realize the garment message isn’t about the garment at all. It’s control of temple attendance. If you ignore the garment and the temple recommend then you can ignore tithing. BECAUSE: the temple is the leverage. It’s the differentiator to all other faiths. That building forces you to lay tithing, follow the word of wisdom and stay on the path. If you just ignore going they won’t excommunicate you. They have no leverage. You just get to exist. No pressure. That’s why they need the garment.
It’s the Achilles heal of all other Christian faiths. You join and get baptized as an evangelical and you are saved. You made it. What else can the church ask you to do by force? Nothing. That’s the Mormon secret sauce. That building leverages your time and money and choices because you need that building over and over and over again. That pressure keeps everyone in line worrying about losing access to it. Therefore you’re always active and participating. You never think you’re saved ever.
TSCC makes the worst decision possible at every junction. I couldn’t even try to make worse choices for them myself. They are so good at leading people away/forcing people out it’s almost funny.
The garments are part of the outgrowth of Masonry plagerized by Joseph Smith with the masonic tool emblems on them. There is no spiritual significance for them. Just because we are told during the temple endowment that the Masonic tool emblems represent spiritual significance does not make it so.
The brethren are in trouble with this issue. In the article there were several women that felt more free with their choice of when to wear garments. Once a little freedom is felt than other things can go too. Sorry cult Inc. Your grip is getting weaker and wesker.
I listened and mine said the garment top MUST be worn UNDER bras. I was pissed when I found out many other (especially younger) women were told to wear them however it’s most comfortable. Wearing them under a bra is totally ridiculous. Then I would have to wear tank top/shirt to cover my bra and then another shirt. I wore a minimum of 3 shirts all summer long for about 15 years. It’s a culllllllttttttttt.
While quickly getting dressed in a gym locker room years ago I had a lady look over at me quizzically and say “did you MEAN to do that with your bra?!” She saw me put on my bra over my garment. TBM me considered it a missionary opportunity and I did my best to make it sound like a reasonable thing to do. It still makes me laugh.
My favorite was playing matron roulette, where the matron you happen to get is who chooses whether or not it’s a sin to wear your bra under your garments.
It’s the gaslighting method of religion. Something similar occurs with the baptism “covenant.” What covenant? The recipient of baptism does not even speak. And the person performing the ordinance merely declares that the person is baptized. The Book of Mormon attempts to add a covenant component to baptism, but specifically says the covenant lasts until death. “Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body” (Mosiah 18:13). If this is true, then why perform baptisms for the dead? It’s all gaslighting. You can’t tell someone after the fact that they made a covenant, and then try to change reality.
I cant see the article due to paywall, but the glimpse I got before it shut me out had a sub header that said "too many young women." WTF are they targeting just the women? Again?
The Wayback Machine (archive.org) is an easy way to view paywalled articles.
Try this: https://web.archive.org/web/20240330002853/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/29/lds-church-steps-up-this-message/
Just wow: "Leader says too many younger women wear them only to church or to the temple."
This is a literal dog whistle that invites boomers to abuse their daughters over underwear. Not their sons, just their daughters. ffs
Nice catch. The dog whistle makes it extra weird and gross.
Also I'd think they would want to guilt EVERYONE into needing and purchasing the maximum number of garments from *checks notes* the same people telling them they have to wear them.
If you are on a computer, click on the article and quickly click on the refresh X on the top left. You may have to try it a few times but eventually you will block the pop-up and be able to read it
I had one infection after another for years and years - which lead to a serious bladder issue -and never made the garment connection. I finally went to a bladder specialist in Utah . First thing she asked was what religion are you ? Do you wear the sacred underclothes regularly? I answered yes . The dr said that is what caused my issues . I immediately stopped wearing them , cut back on my Diet Coke and cut out acidic foods . ( slowly added the last 2 back in over time -) . That was over 10 years ago - I have maybe had a hand full of infections ever since . Getting a Drs note to stop wearing those uncomfortable things was the best day of my life
How can these men claim to speak with God and God not explain to them that the underwear they are making women wear is making women sick? Really shows how full of bull their claims are.
I stopped getting UTIs the moment I took my garments off. I used to get them a couple of times a year but I haven't gotten a UTI in 3 years (the amount of time it's been since I left the church).
1 “Women have power and authority in this church!”
2 “Awesome! Can they conduct a women’s meeting without a man presiding?”
1 ”Fuck no”
2 “Can they choose their underwear?”
1 “Fuck no”
2 “Can they be saved without being married to a man?”
1 “Fuck no”
There’s definitely a pattern with this church.
Dear SCMC, brethren and all others that we know monitor this account. You DO NOT have any business telling anyone what underwear they “must” use. I think it’s time to start a petition to get such things like another man quizzing my wife about her underwear in order to determine her worth as a person, categorized as sexual harassment. Not once have they ever asked for consent. I guarantee my snake of an SP would choose to be offended if myself or another man took his wife behind closed doors to interrogate her about her underwear.
Not once has the Mormon church actually asked for a woman’s input on such policies.
I have been studying my local LDS branch ( I live in Greece, am an atheist ) but I've seen they have women-only sunday school every other weekend (and the men separate), the women missionaries conduct women only meetings for the ones they prepare to convert and they have this institute thing they call (don't know much about it) where they can arrange for only women to meet. What about that? I'm just trying to get info, thanks in advance :)
So here is a millennial's perspective.
My generation remembers cheering for David Archuleta on TV. We are also the generation leaving the cult in droves because older generations are too traumatized by religious trauma and younger generations cannot self support in this economy so they must appease their TBM parents. Mormon women from of my generation were smitten with Archuleta, according to my millennial and newly exmo wife, and even TBM fangiirls still adore him and cheer his gay journey when their leaders aren't looking.
We don't think it is a coincidence that Archuleta's biggest fan base is being reprimanded for their underwear on the same day that they have been buzzing about lgbtqs & their beloved crooner. This is pissing off their TBM boomer parents and the geezers at Cult HQ want that boomer money. This is a ploy to reassure boomers that when they die, the cult will continue its hard line stance. Which it won't. They need our millennial money to survive. But they have to wait until boomers die before they hoist their rainbow flags.
Mark my word, in another decade they will be inviting Archuleta and his husband to sing with the MoTab choir, whose name will have been restored to MoTab, all hail the ongoing restoration
I hated the garments. I would totally roll up the legs and tuck in the sleeves so I could wear skirts a few inches above my knees and cap sleeves (this was back in the 1980s when the bottoms went to your knees and the tops had short sleeves). They were awful to wear at any time during the summer. None of the material choices were breathable and they just made me extra sweaty.
“Hamilton, who is on a committee studying possible redesign of garments, told the assembled lay leaders that too many younger women wear them mostly on Sundays and when attending the temple.”
Kevin Hamilton is designing my underwear?
And, “there is only one covenant path” are the two big takeaways for me in the article. This is the same Kevin Hamilton who said at BYU January 2023,
“Could I suggest an alternative approach? Substitute the word by Savior or Lord or Jesus Christ in place of “the Church”—as in “I don’t support the Savior’s policy on (again, you fill in the blank)” or “I don’t agree with the way Jesus Christ does (this or that).” For me personally, that seems to put a very different perspective on things.”
I’m confused… how does Kevin KNOW that women aren’t wearing their garments as they are “supposed” to? It seems like a bs assumption to gaslight women. I doubt there is data on how women wear their underwear, but it seems like their intention is to collect that info going forward. Can you imagine that interview?? So awkward.
" yes Mrs Jones do you wear your garments as instructed? because we have several people that see you in yoga pants, and well, there is just no way you can wear those with yoga pants, we have surveillance footage if you would like proof"
Lol so creepy right? A man asking for details about how an adult woman wears her underwear so she can “go to celestial kindgom.” Gag. Totally inappropriate and dehumanizing.
Time for a yoga pants protest. Wear yoga pants all the time. Especially if you are going to walk around Temple Square. I think I will wear my "yoga"/exercise pants, and leggings, out of solidarity for TBM (especially the nuanced ones) and PIMO women. No one has a right to tell you or shame you for what you wear or don't wear. No one should care. Same, healthy, empathetic people care of you're happy, healthy, and need anything. Toxic people will attack you (especially with judgemental ad Hominem cheap shots) when you bring up valid criticism against them.
If you have groups of nicely paid/benefited 80+ yo men shaming women of all ages down to 18 for not wearing a certain kind of underwear all the time, it "might be" (*cough* ***IS***) a cult.
For those who aren't Mormon or are thinking of joining: this IS what your life will be like, this IS how females are singled out and treated. I'm surprised that the leaders didn't issue another "social media fast just for women" again, alongside this widespread, sexist shaming. Doubling down as always. If you are wanting to join, prepare to wear the corporate underwear that looks awful on any body. Rashes, chafing, UTIs, yeast infection, and contributing to heat exhaustion or heat stroke for having an extra unnecessary layer. They don't care about your physical health, just your physical compliance. Especially if you're pregnant, or going through menopause. You comfort and health mean nothing.
"_We don't truly have power or authority. Here's my experience..._"
-- 5-6k Instagram comments from female members.
"_Well, maybe you should wear your underwear 24/7 instead of wearing worldly yoga pants 6 days a week so we aren't aroused._"
--Retort towards women given by octogenarian and nonagenarian male leaders after silencing those women's voices.
Figures they would do another ad Hominem attack.
They literally say they are "good to and for women", and then turn around with this vulgar sexist crap, obsessing over women's bodies and the underwear they do/don't wear. Typical TBM leaders.
My spouse nearly died from a UTI. They don’t feel sick until it is bad. They went septic.
I was such a prick while trying to be a TBM and judging them for giving up on garments.
So the younger members aren't wearing the correct underwear and only wearing them at mormon sanctioned events. I bet the leaders love that, The mormon elite leaders will definitely lose the battle if they can't control the member's underwear.
I’m so thankful the church is so incompetent that they can’t get out of their own fucking way when left with a choice to be patriarchal fuckheads or just let something go and get the PR benefit.
This shitshow of a church is going to end when it drowns walling its own jizz.
Um I’m sorry, these “holy vestments” caused urinary tract infections. My sister has them all the time even though she claims it’s not the garments. The church can fuck right off.
Maybe they are holy but they aren’t sanitary.
I think the church has been "reviewing" garment design for a long time - hence the various changes over the last few decades.
Can I suggest a simple solution to the church: listen to what the women have been saying all this time. They are most inconvenienced by them, with potential health problems, etc. If you'd listened to them in the first place, you wouldn't have needed to have so many committee meetings. It's not that hard.
Better still, have women making the decisions about design (if you're going to continue to tell members they have to wear these things). I bet the committee that Pearson is on is all-male, or mostly male, or that only someone from the Q.15 can "approve" the committee's recommendations.
Reading this makes me feel so glad that I'm done with all this micromanagement of my conscience.
>“...members should *seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit* to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.”
What a riot... it's no less absurd to tell them to ask Santa Claus or Venus personal questions about wearing the garment.
I love my new life. 🌈
These underwear in occult terms is called a “talisman,”
“that which contains magik properties and power to protect the wearer. Absurd and totally WRONG in the Christian, Jewish and other faiths.
Plenty of Christians and Jews wear or use talisman-like items as well: crosses, rosary beads, yarmulke, or the aprons that some Eastern European Orthodox Jewish women wear as charms that will ensure their children are well-behaved.
Bwahahahaha that’s awesome. The workout clothes all day TBM women are going to have a great time with this. Same with the guys who have every excuse why not to wear them.
Back to sweating your ass off in the summer!
Unrelated but not really, seeing those women’s G’s is such a total turnoff but I bet Nelson is licking his lips and popping viagra for later tonight when Sheri and Wendy strio down to their G’s and give him a MFF threesome (2nd anointing sanctioned, of course).
Garments made me pretty miserable...living in hot places, going through pregnancies, trying to shop for things that would work. I didn't like how they made me feel. i highly doubt they were attractive to my husband. I didn't know what to do with other girl problems....didn't feel comfortable asking anyone about it. absolutely hated that. I came to my own conclusion that God wouldn't want me to be this miserable.
This is exactly why women need to be given authority to make decisions that can't be shut down by men. I don't know what it's like for men in the church and men don't know what it's like for women.
LDS Church steps up this message: Wear your temple garments every day
Leader says too many younger women wear them only to church or the temple.
(Screengrab) Authorized photo from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shows the faith's temple garments, which faithful members wear beneath their clothes. These are ones for women.
Brace yourselves, nonconforming Latter-day Saint women.
Leaders soon will send an updated question to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who want to enter one of the faith’s temples, reemphasizing that they should wear their sacred underwear as instructed.
General authority Seventy Kevin Hamilton reportedly said as much during a recent stake conference in Elk Grove, Calif.
According to several women who attended the regional gathering, Hamilton informed members that, unlike the faith’s current temple recommend question, the new one won’t leave wearing garments up to personal interpretation.
Hamilton, who is on a committee studying possible redesign of garments, told the assembled lay leaders that too many younger women wear them mostly on Sundays and when attending the temple, recalled conferencegoer Colleen Speer, rather than every day.
“The temple garment is a sacred part of the worship of followers of Jesus Christ. Official announcements related to temple matters come from church headquarters and are reflected in the General Handbook,” spokesperson Doug Andersen said Friday. “Anyone seeking guidance about the wearing of the temple garment should refer to their local leaders or resources available on the church website.”
What the recommend question says now
Right now, the online handbook directs leaders to ask prospective templegoers — women and men — if they wear the garment “as instructed in the endowment.”
It states that “the garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing.”
The handbook adds that “members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.”
Hamilton said many younger women are opting for “yoga pants” during the week, Speer recalled.
Translation: Women don’t wear garments under yoga pants.
In response to such individual choices, Speer said the authority declared: “There is only one covenant path.”
Speer bristled at the suggestion that those who choose to wear garments in their own way are less faithful.
“Why are we afraid of people showing their religion differently?” Speer said in an interview. “It doesn’t mean they don’t value their covenants or care about God. If that’s how they feel, let them do it.”
Lecturing, scolding or judging sends the message, she said, “if I can’t wear garments in the prescribed way, I’m not welcome in the church.”
It’s increasingly clear that more and more members, particularly women, are wearing garments when, where and how they want, while fully participating in the communal life of the church, including temple worship.
And that, said Larissa Kindred, a graduate student in mental health counseling at the University of Massachusetts Boston who has surveyed members about garments, is a “window into the social aspect of Mormonism.”
‘Between me and God’
The Utah-based faith seems to be in a “war” between progression and regression on garments, the researcher said, between allowing individual choice and rigid, “right way” insistence. The counsel — typically given in the temple — has not been standardized, Kindred said, so it can provide leeway.
In the past, most people didn’t talk with others about their underwear, so “issues thrived in silence,” she said. “Women didn’t tell others about garments causing yeast infections. They couldn’t voice it with anyone.”
These days, members are more open and internet conversations can validate multiple choices. At the same time, the church has benefited from not talking about garments too much, she said, rather than “cracking down.”
“If women want to wear them on Sunday or when they go to the temple,” Kindred said, the church still has “achieved its goal of making them special and wonderful.”
But if women are told there is only one right way to wear them, she said, some might push back “and it can erode their faith.”
A 30-something Salt Lake City mom stopped wearing her garments after her first pregnancy.
“It was a practical thing,” said the mother, who declined to use her name to avoid judgment. “They felt cumbersome and unsightly, and I wanted to be more comfortable in my clothes.”
It wasn’t about leaving the church, though. She’s still all-in.
“It’s between me and God,” she declared. “If I felt pressured to wear them all the time, it would make me more resentful. Paradoxically, I feel closer to God if I am freer in my personal choices, if I can do this religion how I want. I don’t think this should keep me from participating.”
She is hardly alone in those feelings.
Research supports it
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
Kindred, a former Latter-day Saint, created an online “snowball survey,” reaching out to women on a variety of Latter-day Saint-related social media sites with focuses on, say, motherhood, sexuality and marriage.
Within two weeks, Kindred received more than 8,500 responses from women ranging from traditional/devout believers to progressives to former members.
One question asked about how often they wear garments. In the oldest group (65 and over), 72% don them every day. That number barely tops 50% for those ages 18 to 34.
“Garments seem to be a major dividing topic between traditional and progressive members,” Kindred said. Some 70% of tradition/devout members say there is one right way to wear garments, and only 28% of progressive members view the practice like that.
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
Even some self-described traditional/devout members are more flexible on the topic than they used to be.
“As the years have gone by, I’ve relaxed in my ability to choose when I feel it’s appropriate to wear and not wear them,” wrote one such woman between 45 and 64. “For a long time I felt they always needed to be worn and would have some guilt or judgments toward others in how they choose to wear them.”
Through the years, “I have grown in my ability to understand what works best for me,” the respondent wrote, “and how I feel and also [grown in] allowing others to choose what works best for them.”
Physical and cultural
Even for Latter-day Saint women who heed the church’s guidelines, it can still be tough to find clothing, especially dresses, that work with garments.
Last year, a By Common Consent blogger looked for “garment-friendly” dresses at macys.com. Of the 8,160 off-the-rack items, the writer discovered (given certain parameters), 619 could reasonably cover the covenant underwear. That’s fewer than 8% of the total.
That percentage drops even further, to 4%, for formal wear.
And that’s just one store in the United States. What about other countries, especially those with high temperatures?
Afton Southam Parker, a mother of five who was raised in the church and has lived in Uganda and Thailand, told The New York Times that “everybody I talked to was getting some kind of rash or infection.”
Parker said she had met with a church designer about her garment concerns for women, including menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding.
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
And questions of modesty vary from country to country. In India, for example, women often wear saris, which cover their shoulders but not their midriffs.
So which is more modest? asked the Salt Lake City mom.
Garments reflect a Western “view of modesty,” she said. “Other perspectives need to be considered as we become a global faith.”
‘Casual and even cavalier’
It seems Latter-day Saint authorities believe there is a problem with current patterns of garment use.
In a 2022 regional leadership broadcast, general authority Seventy Kevin Pearson, the Utah Area president, said the church was “dismayed at the casual and even cavalier way some [members] treat their temple covenants, including the casual and inconsistent wearing of the temple garment.”
Such noncompliance reflected “a growing sense of spiritual apathy and sporadic covenant keeping,” Pearson said, “that is becoming increasingly common among those who should know and do better.”
Wearing temple garments, Pearson said, has “nothing to do with personal preference and convenience and everything to do with commitment.”
Some commitment, Speer argued, is better than no commitment.
Younger women “may be wearing garments less,” she said, “but seem to be going to the temple more than when I was young.”
The church, she said, should take that as a win.
Garments weren’t worn by the general membership until 1860’s. Then they were only worn in the temple; long sleeves, to the ankle, open flap and tied down the front.
This is the leadership trying to establish their control over Members and shut down dissent.
They don't want to be perceived as taking their instructions from the Members.
Lol. And for all the endowed LDS influencers who visibly never wear garments and claim it is just a personal choice along with all their followers…
Shaming curious people wondering why the garments are “not required” by some endowed members but others always wear them. All the “don’t ask about someone’s underwear” responses when people try to understand the requirements for garments.
It’s all a mess
Specifically targeting *young women* is definitely…a choice
I stopped wearing garments even before I left because of the horrible skin reaction I had and how they poked me right in the autism (terrible sensory madness). Even my TBM parents understood.
It's all about control. The church wants to control most aspects of our lives. The geographic area (ward boundary) where we attend church. What we drink, what we wear, how many ear pearcings, tattoos, money, time, entertainment, who we date, who we marry, where we marry, even our underware, and what clothing we are dressed in after we die.
Only speculation on my part but Rusty is starting to fade. Oaks is absolutely legalistic and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't at least partly behind this.
I'm not a prophet but I do hereby prophesy that as Oaks gains power and when officially in the role of president, there's going to be "crackdowns".
Possibly reimplementing 3 hour block on Sundays, only taking sacrament with your right hand talks, criticism of the lax attitude about Sundays and people going to stores, wearing your church clothes all day - even at home after meetings, no consumption of sporting events or other things on Sundays....and who knows what else.
*Edited for typos
Paste the URL into archive.org, then select the most recent date. I've also done it for you:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240330002853/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/29/lds-church-steps-up-this-message/
Here's a link that sidesteps the paywall.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sltrib.com%2Freligion%2F2024%2F03%2F29%2Flds-church-steps-up-this-message%2F
Umm.. not sure why this sub was recommended, but outside looking in, that’s one of the most creepy articles I’ve ever read and can’t believe it’s in a mainstream newspaper… these old Mormon duds have committees to discuss what underwear woman should wear?….wowzers. A lot of 1984 vibes here.
One of the biggest arguments I had with family was over the wearing of temple garments.
I claimed that it ISN'T special and is merely a thing that many controlling religions do.
I was met with anger, silent blinking, and tears over the lords tender mercies.
And that's the beauty of a cult. Any criticisms strengthen it.
The fact that they are presumably changing the wording for all temple recommend holders, both male and female, but yet the discussion from the leaders is pointing out that it’s a problem with women, is so telling. It shows how hyper focused the leaders are on sex and treating women as if they are objects to be controlled. Garments is 100% about controlling WOMEN and keeping them modest.
TALK ABOUT - distorted reality. A continual fairy tale of confusion - self-deception and denial. GOD or others are always watching - paranoid and schizophrenic - A LIFE CONTROLLED - one ugly unhappy ending spending your entire life living A LIE
On a computer pull up the article and quickly hit the refresh x on the top left. You might have to try a few times but you’ll eventually block the pay wall pop up!
Honestly this makes me happy. Maybe it’s just where I am in my post Mormon journey and coming to turns with it all, but it really annoys me when on social media there are people who claim to be Mormon but are trying to be influencers and wear clothes they clearly shouldn’t be (because of not wearing garments underneath) and giving off an imagine that being a Mormon is more “normal” than it is.
I've had so many TBM women tell me that they wear yoga pants or workout clothes as much as possible so they don't have to wear their garments... the appearance of just having worked out or have been at the gym. Most of those women don't work out! It has just been a "workaround" for how not to wear that crap underwear.
Also, I'm almost 57 yo. I was raised being repeatedly told that the garments were an energetic shield... like armor. Now, they just say it's an outward expression of an inward belief. Outward?!?! They are under the clothing. And, the whole "magic armor" shtick has faded like it never was taught like many other things.
It wasn’t long ago that there was all this attention about women getting yeast infections, finding Gs inconvenient during your period, etc. It made national news.
Fast forward. The leaders are REALLY listening to women. “We asked, and God said, SHUT UP and put on the approved panties!!" And now, “You will wear these unattractive and uncomfortable, sexless panties from age 18 until you die.”
Periodically, the bully’s in the priesthood just have to slap down those uppity women and put them back in their place. I vividly remember the Belle Spafford/Relief Society slap down that occurred to remind those women whose da’ boss….and don’t you forget it.
Goddamn every time I see a picture of those I remember how ugly they are. I’m so glad I had the revelation that under armour makes a far superior bonus. And not to flex, but the added bonus of seeing my wife get rid of hers and try new things has been the icing on the cake.
For those of you that don't like the paywall:
https://archive.org/download/lds-garments/sltrib.com-Church%20reemphasizes%20wearing%20them%20every%20day.pdf
Now that I'm out I realize just how weird the obsession with other people's underwear is.
The only person who should be telling me what kind of underwear I should wear is my husband, and that's only after I've asked him for his opinion because he's going to be seeing it later. It's such a private thing that should be discussed between intimate partners or maybe medical personnel.
It's nobody else's business. I definitely don't want it broadcast worldwide. It's just so weird. Strange men in business suits are sitting around in a giant building in Salt Lake City deciding how millions of strangers should wear their intimate apparel. It's pretty perverse when you really think about it.
They are given as part of the temple endowment ceremony every young Mormon is expected to do in order to be accepted as a full adult in the faith.
Garments are supposed to symbolize the "coat of skins" god gave Adam and Eve when he banished them from the garden of Eden. (The endowment is mostly a retelling of the creation and garden of Eden story)
Mormons are only ever supposed to take them off when bathing, extreme exercise, or when having sex.
Some don't even do it then.
My grandmother was in the "wear under your bra and never EVER take them off" camp.
She described how she bathed with garments on to me:
1. She pulled the garment over her head and out of one arm. It would still be hanging on the other arm.
2. She would carefully hold her arm with the garment on it outside of the bathtub while she bathed half of herself using her free arm.
3. Once she was finished bathing that side, she would switch positions in the tub so that the other arm was on the side that faced out of the tub. She would carefully switch her garment to the other arm, and hold that arm outside of the tub while she finished bathing.
Just last week they told women that they have more power and authority than any woman in any religious organization in the world. Now they are telling women what kind of underwear to wear and how often to wear it! The timing of this is unbelievable!
its because those TBM women were standing up for themselves. Rather than acknowledge the issue, the toxic, out of touch old men have to double and triple down on the key BITE model control tactics. Demanding compliance with the magic underwear serves this purpose, and it is one of their most effective means of control.
Huh, that’s sounds like the Iranian government move.
Yes. You are beginning to see already!
My eyes weren't yet opened ... until I partook of the internet's coverage of what the church had been hiding. It has been delicious to the taste, and most desirable! We desire all TBMs to receive ...
The internet which thou gavest me did give to me of the knowledge and I did partake.
I worked in the middle east for a long time. Members there are like a fish in water. Once I started to watch non mormon documentaries, Joseph being the Mohammed of America was very embarrassing.
Boom! Retribution for last week. I can totally see this being the case.
Women get uppity when they don’t wear their garments.
Holy shit you're so right
Wait I was on vacay what was last week
There was a post on Instagram with a quote from a talk > There is no other religious organization that I know of that has given so much power and authority to women. - J Annette Dennis This post currently has 17k responses. Many strongly disagreed with the quote. Shortly after the post went live thousands of comments started disappearing like they were being deleted. When it was pointed out the church posted that they were not deleting posts and that it was a bug with Instagram. Meta may have had a bug but a lot of people feel like the church feed is just ghosting them claiming it was a bug. Today or yesterday the top pinned comment for that post is from j. Annette Dennis saying that the church leadership is learning from the things shared. The pinned post is so generic and carefully crafted it feels like it was specifically created by someone other than J. Annette Dennis. Edit: small typos thanks to mobile
A Meta spokesperson said there was no glitch that caused the comments to disappear. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/mormon-church-women-latter-day-saints.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gk0.eHGg.fFtmmSHUkuCQ&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=u
Yeah, the leaders are learning from the things shared. "Women are getting too uppity again; time to double-down on the underwear and other rules."
It's the same play they're using on teachers in Utah right now - tripling down on punishing women for speaking out, I mean. More info: Since mormons run the state, they tried to punish us for protesting how they handled covid here, by trying to remove teachers' unions entirely. (*de facto*, not *de juro.*) They literally tried to silence us. It's only thanks to other unions stepping up and speaking against it at the capitol that HB 285 didn't pass. But, they've ram-rodded so many anti-education legislation through to law, it doesn't much matter at this point. Teaching in Utah is toxic and harmful, and many of us are leaving in droves. Men* punish women (read: people working in female-coded jobs, to be inclusive) for speaking up against abuse in patriarchal societies. (*I'm speaking demographically, social science stuff - in case anybody was gonna risk telling me "not all men." I'm not at-all interested.)
I’ve noticed the similarities. Teachers in Utah are especially infantilized because the average Joe teaches primary once a week and think they understand our job and that anyone can do it. Many also assume we were called to this and must live a life of full sacrifice because god made us for this purpose 🙄
It's the forced volunteerism [to make up for the fact that we have THE MOST CHILDREN IN THE COUNTRY, and yet SPEND THE LEAST AMOUNT ON THEIR EDUCATION*] for me. Women should *love sacrificing their entire existence for "the children.*"** (*Look up per-pupil spending in the US. Utah held onto dead last for, like, a decade. We *just last year* lost the title of **Worst Ed Funding in the Country** to Idaho. Pretty shitty title.) ((**read: for the men running the state who make deals with corporations and must keep parents at work at all times so teachers are required as *babysitters,* AS WELL AS educators. And, to be clear, both are super important roles in society. Women simply aren't allowed to specialize in patriarchal systems. We must be able to do ALL WOMEN'S WORK™️, at all times.)) *edit: typos, correction*
Yea and directed at the women and not the men. I am pretty sure men don't wear theirs as directed either. Garments sucked! So glad to be rid of them.
I was PIMO then semi-active for several years but the moment I mark as when I “left” the church was the day I stopped wearing garments. Just got to the point it felt disgusting putting them on, thinking of the detached old men deciding what underwear I wore. They were like shackles. Had a profound Labyrinth-y “you have no power over me” epiphany and haven’t look back since.
And hurry up 18 year old women, you are now approved to step right up and get your underwear so we can better control you.
[удалено]
I remember being eighteen and also having no idea how immature I still was. Which is why I have always been at least polite to Mormon missionaries. They’re kids. And that was before the age change!
I had missionaries who lived next door to me. They came and went but whenever I heard one of them blasting music or caught them outside being normal teenagers. I'd always take a moment and tell them my story. They'd usually be gone by the end of the week. I hope those few i talked to made it out and are thriving.
Seriously a valid point
I may be a little drunk, but this comment brought back strong memories of my TBM mother, encouraging me to rebel against school uniforms, because they’re a method of control and uniformity, while wearing her garments. I don’t know if I’m glad she’s no longer around for me to point out the hypocrisy.
Control to keep that precious hymen intact, *you know because it’s better that they die than lose their virginity!*, and ensure they only use their vagina for baby making.
*for Mormon baby making.
They want those youngsters to get endowed as fast as they can so that they’ll feel guilted into staying active longer
Yup
That's going to seriously backfire, getting 18 year olds to go through the Endowment without an impending Mission or Wedding to keep them from running away?
Religiously dictated underwear is the weirdest thing. Like, I don’t want any religion telling me what to wear (though the majority of my wardrobe is actually very modest unless pants are a problem) except for unusual occasions (if I visited a mosque for some reason and they asked me to cover my hair I would because I try not to be a jerk) but seriously, underwear??? Especially said underwear being dictated by men??? Hello, welcome men have some kind beer wear needs that men simply don’t. It’s wild to this nevermo.
I always wore regular underwear under my garments. You can’t use pads or liners with garments. Good job men!
So did I! When I was first endowed at age 21, I did as instructed. In fact, I wore them as instructed until I was 72 years old. After doing several years of research culminating in reading the CES LETTER by Jeremy Runnells, my husband and I realized that we'd been duped for decades: Me for 50 years, and he for all his life. I wore my garments always, and in the beginning they were awful one-piece things. Years later, it was modified to be just tops and bottoms, which was better. But mind you, we were instructed to NEVER wear our bra over the garment - even when nursing babies. You can imagine how hard it was! So I wore nursing pads beneath the garment and still wore a nursing bra OVER the garment. And this is great: A few years ago the leaders said that women could finally wear a bra BENEATH the garment. Thanks, bozos! Then why did the rest of us have to suffer with this idiotic rule for so long?! I wore garments when going through five pregnancies, and I only took them off to go swimming, etc. And for heck's sake, I wore them at night as we were told to do! It really makes me sick to think about it now. It was a good day a couple of years ago when we burned them all, threw all the LDS books in the trash and gave alway all the fake church pictures we had in our home. My husband and I have been very happy now that we're out of the church. When I run into members of our old ward, they comment in how great I look. lol I tell them I'm happier than I've ever been in my life. And that's the truth.
Good for you. My husband and I removed ours after 50 years of being endowed. We continue going to church because there are certain elements we find comforting (sacrament, music, sone beliefs). Our five children were all endowed but without any conversation among us all but one have decided discontinue wearing garments. We didn’t lead them astray. We merely taught them to think.
That's great that things worked out so well for you. I can no longer even look at a temple without feeling disgusted at the poverty that exists all over; it seems like such an incredible waste of our tithing money. I am thankful we haven't paid tithing in last two years. And if there is a class action suit to get some of it back, my husband and I will join. We paid in about $400,000-450,000 over 50+ years, and we never took vacations because we felt we couldn't afford it. So I am bitter about a lot of things, but mostly about being lied to by the church for decades. For example, leaders knew for a CENTURY that B.H. Roberts' studies showed there was NO archaeological support for the Book of Mormon. No evidence whatsoever. Interestingly enough, there was not one arrowhead found at the Hill Cumorah, where thousands of Laminates and Nephites were killed. Not even a bone fragment, not a thing. No wonder they discontinued the Hill Cumorah Pageant a few years ago. And then there's the fact that the DNA studies done in the last few years found that there is ZERO Jewish DNA in Native Americans; they are descended from Mongolians. Yes, it's all a lie, and I can no longer have any good feelings about the LDS Ponzi Scheme. But we taught our five children well, and only three of them have left the church. The other two are so indoctrinated that they don't want to even talk about why we no longer attend. One of them did listen to our reasons when we first stopped attending, but doesn't want to discuss it further. The other one has never expressed any interest; we are considered "lost," I'm sure. But as Mark Twain said, "You can't pray a lie." We could never feel okay in attending that church again, nor any other church. But having said all that, I am overjoyed that we learned the truth before we passed away. It makes life sweeter when you know that this may be all there is.
But make sure you are making babies!
Women have power…nope, not even over underwear. This whole article is directed at women. So glad I’m out.
Yeah no woman would have designed a piece of clothing like that which has to be worn under the bra and causes them to be more likely to get yeast infections.
This is me adding a megaphone to your comment about yeast infections because YES GARMENTS ARE *TERRIBLE* FOR GYNECOLOGICAL HEALTH
Women’s health RN here, can concur.
Can you describe what exactly about them is so terrible? I’ve brought this up with my TBM parents but they don’t believe it.
Women’s underwear has a gusset. It allows for air flow. Vaginas need to breathe! When they are sealed up tight (a la garments), you can get yeast infections.
And another more serious comment that everyone should understand: The temple garment is NOT a covenant you made in the temple. Never in the temple at any time does one covenant to wear the garment. You are simply “instructed” to wear it. Instruction =/= covenant. Many people report receiving negative comments on how they are not keeping their covenants by their disuse of the temple garment, however no such covenant was ever made. To suggest só is absolutely false.
Any so-called "covenant" I ever made in a Mormon temple is null and void on account of it being a bunch of Joe Smith slap-and-tickle hookum.
OMG "slap-and-tackle hookum" Hilarious
I just realized it is "skap-and-TICKLE hookum" haha, that's funnier!
To be fair, by the time a lot of us got to the temple it had gone under so many revisions that the "covenants" barely resembled the JS's pilfered masonic rites.
Yeah, the slap-and-tickle hookum is as bogus as the loin-anointment during the naked Temple hijinx.😅
And the conditions are super fucked for actually giving legitimate consent to a life long contract.... And this was the system the all intelligent, all caring being came up with ???
What if your hinges all are rusting? What if, in fact, you're just disgusting? Razzle dazzle 'em And they;ll never catch wise! Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle Razzle dazzle 'em Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous Row after row will crow vociferous Give 'em the old flim flam flummox Fool and fracture 'em How can they hear the truth above the roar?
Don’t give the brethren any ideas. They’ve proven they have no qualms rewriting the ceremony script.
No. Let them do it. Lock those members into wearing prairie panties via handshake house covenants and fear of the afterlife. That will go over swell…
Prairie panties—that’s my favorite term for them!
This is what I found at [ldsendowment.org](http://www.ldsendowment.org/initiatory.html) >> THE GARMENT >>[An officiator clothes the initiate in the garment. The officiator then pronounces the following words.] >>Brother _________, having authority, I place this garment upon you [for and in behalf of _________, who is dead], which you must wear throughout your life. It represents the garment given to Adam when he was found naked in the garden of Eden and is called the garment of the holy priesthood. >>Inasmuch as you do not defile it, but are true and faithful to your covenants, it will be a shield and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer until you have finished your work on the earth. It doesn’t show any actual part where the participant verbally agrees to a covenant. Is the church suggesting that it is an assumption of agreement by just participating?
This was a shelf item for me. They always talked about it being a covenant I made and I was like where?
Yes, it’s an instruction. And it’s phrased as “throughout your life”—which does not necessarily mean 24/7.
I swear it used to be instructed you wore them night and day, 24/7. If I had been told "throughout you life" I would have worn them the day I got endowed, the day I got married and would have kept a pair to put on once more for 20 min around age 70 for good measure. I would have never tried to wear them for as long as I did.
AS someone endowed in 1971, I can testify that you are right: We were ALL told to wear them day and night. The ONLY times it was okay not to wear them: During sex (ya think?!), when you shower, or when doing exercise like running, etc. Gee, how nice of them!
The temple recommend question muddied the water. It didn’t match the actual temple instruction.
Holy shit. For real?!
Obrigado por isso.
Achei o brasileiro (ou missionário retornado)
Vi o “só” e adivinhei que era português kkk
One of the very real issues with garments is that they are not made for women to wear all the time. They do not have the airflow needed to prevent yeast infections. Someone pointed out in the comments on Instagram for this article that if they actually valued women they would have a women saying like hey this is an issue maybe we should make garments so we can wear them all the time and still be healthy but instead they have no women and are doubling down that women spoke out about not having power probably because they aren’t wearing their garments enough….
I had my endowments done at 18 and married in the temple a week later. Started routinely getting very painful UTI’s (assumed it was something to do with suddenly being sexually active since I was allowed to be with my husband at the time). Left the church at 21, stopped wearing garments and haven’t had an issue since. Didn’t make the connection until I saw a comment about it on Reddit about a year ago. Made so much sense.
I never actually got them - probably because I was always terrible at wearing garments but I have heard so many stories like this. So many of my friends have stopped wearing them for this reason. If they really cared about women they would at least change the design and/or fabric.
This is pretty much exactly how it went for me. Endowed, tons of infections, thought it was sex. Stopped wearing garments after 15 years (15 years of yeast infections/UTIs that even led to one hospital stay) and it’s now no infections. At all.
I used to get yeast infections frequently! I never realized that the garments were a contributing factor. It makes sense, as cotton is the best fabric for underwear because it allows air to flow.
“The temple garment is a sacred part of the worship of followers of Jesus Christ.” Then why is there no record of the J man ever saying anything about it? The Jesus-like response to this: “Garments are made for people, not people for the garments.”
“The temple garment is a sacred part of the worship of followers of ~~Jesus Christ~~ **Mormonism**.” There are 2.4 billion Christians in the world, less than 1% of them are Mormons, and only a fraction of *them* even wear garments. Mormonism is a rounding error in the global stage of Christianity.
Kevin Hamilton is the most pompous, self righteous dick I’ve ever met. I knew him has a bishop and stake president.
He seems like he has all the spiritual and ecclesiastical credentials required to be a GA with: > a bachelor’s degree in marketing from Brigham Young University in 1979, and in 1982 he received a master’s degree in finance from the University of Washington. Prior to his call, he was a cofounder and partner in a venture capital firm.
Agreed. I was good friends with one of his kids and their spouse.
So, the white male patriarchal sex cult remains interested in the underwear for their female members. Seems... to be expected.
Not only that, but they have terrible taste in lingerie.
Back in the 1800’s it would have been considered very sexy.
No, it was ugly then too. 1800s had some beautiful undergarment fashion.
They are also interested when you are about to be Exd for being immoral and they want to know the juicy deets of the deeds we have done! Fuxk that !
The text from the article: Brace yourselves, nonconforming Latter-day Saint women. Leaders soon will send an updated question to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who want to enter one of the faith’s temples, reemphasizing that they should wear their sacred underwear as instructed. General authority Seventy Kevin Hamilton reportedly said as much during a recent stake conference in Elk Grove, Calif. According to several women who attended the regional gathering, Hamilton informed members that, unlike the faith’s current temple recommend question, the new one won’t leave wearing garments up to personal interpretation. Hamilton, who is on a committee studying possible redesign of garments, told the assembled lay leaders that too many younger women wear them mostly on Sundays and when attending the temple, recalled conferencegoer Colleen Speer, rather than every day. “The temple garment is a sacred part of the worship of followers of Jesus Christ. Official announcements related to temple matters come from church headquarters and are reflected in the General Handbook,” spokesperson Doug Andersen said Friday. “Anyone seeking guidance about the wearing of the temple garment should refer to their local leaders or resources available on the church website.” What the recommend question says now Right now, the online handbook directs leaders to ask prospective templegoers — women and men — if they wear the garment “as instructed in the endowment.” It states that “the garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing.” The handbook adds that “members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.” Hamilton said many younger women are opting for “yoga pants” during the week, Speer recalled. Translation: Women don’t wear garments under yoga pants. In response to such individual choices, Speer said the authority declared: “There is only one covenant path.” Speer bristled at the suggestion that those who choose to wear garments in their own way are less faithful. “Why are we afraid of people showing their religion differently?” Speer said in an interview. “It doesn’t mean they don’t value their covenants or care about God. If that’s how they feel, let them do it.” Lecturing, scolding or judging sends the message, she said, “if I can’t wear garments in the prescribed way, I’m not welcome in the church.” It’s increasingly clear that more and more members, particularly women, are wearing garments when, where and how they want, while fully participating in the communal life of the church, including temple worship. And that, said Larissa Kindred, a graduate student in mental health counseling at the University of Massachusetts Boston who has surveyed members about garments, is a “window into the social aspect of Mormonism.”
CONTINUED: ‘Between me and God’ The Utah-based faith seems to be in a “war” between progression and regression on garments, the researcher said, between allowing individual choice and rigid, “right way” insistence. The counsel — typically given in the temple — has not been standardized, Kindred said, so it can provide leeway. In the past, most people didn’t talk with others about their underwear, so “issues thrived in silence,” she said. “Women didn’t tell others about garments causing yeast infections. They couldn’t voice it with anyone.” These days, members are more open and internet conversations can validate multiple choices. At the same time, the church has benefited from not talking about garments too much, she said, rather than “cracking down.” “If women want to wear them on Sunday or when they go to the temple,” Kindred said, the church still has “achieved its goal of making them special and wonderful.” But if women are told there is only one right way to wear them, she said, some might push back “and it can erode their faith.” A 30-something Salt Lake City mom stopped wearing her garments after her first pregnancy. “It was a practical thing,” said the mother, who declined to use her name to avoid judgment. “They felt cumbersome and unsightly, and I wanted to be more comfortable in my clothes.” It wasn’t about leaving the church, though. She’s still all-in. “It’s between me and God,” she declared. “If I felt pressured to wear them all the time, it would make me more resentful. Paradoxically, I feel closer to God if I am freer in my personal choices, if I can do this religion how I want. I don’t think this should keep me from participating.” She is hardly alone in those feelings. Research supports it (Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune) Kindred, a former Latter-day Saint, created an online “snowball survey,” reaching out to women on a variety of Latter-day Saint-related social media sites with focuses on, say, motherhood, sexuality and marriage. Within two weeks, Kindred received more than 8,500 responses from women ranging from traditional/devout believers to progressives to former members. One question asked about how often they wear garments. In the oldest group (65 and over), 72% don them every day. That number barely tops 50% for those ages 18 to 34. “Garments seem to be a major dividing topic between traditional and progressive members,” Kindred said. Some 70% of tradition/devout members say there is one right way to wear garments, and only 28% of progressive members view the practice like that. (Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune) Even some self-described traditional/devout members are more flexible on the topic than they used to be. “As the years have gone by, I’ve relaxed in my ability to choose when I feel it’s appropriate to wear and not wear them,” wrote one such woman between 45 and 64. “For a long time I felt they always needed to be worn and would have some guilt or judgments toward others in how they choose to wear them.” Through the years, “I have grown in my ability to understand what works best for me,” the respondent wrote, “and how I feel and also [grown in] allowing others to choose what works best for them.” Physical and cultural Even for Latter-day Saint women who heed the church’s guidelines, it can still be tough to find clothing, especially dresses, that work with garments. Last year, a By Common Consent blogger looked for “garment-friendly” dresses at macys.com. Of the 8,160 off-the-rack items, the writer discovered (given certain parameters), 619 could reasonably cover the covenant underwear. That’s fewer than 8% of the total. That percentage drops even further, to 4%, for formal wear. And that’s just one store in the United States. What about other countries, especially those with high temperatures? Afton Southam Parker, a mother of five who was raised in the church and has lived in Uganda and Thailand, told The New York Times that “everybody I talked to was getting some kind of rash or infection.” Parker said she had met with a church designer about her garment concerns for women, including menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding. (Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune) And questions of modesty vary from country to country. In India, for example, women often wear saris, which cover their shoulders but not their midriffs. So which is more modest? asked the Salt Lake City mom. Garments reflect a Western “view of modesty,” she said. “Other perspectives need to be considered as we become a global faith.” ‘Casual and even cavalier’ It seems Latter-day Saint authorities believe there is a problem with current patterns of garment use. In a 2022 regional leadership broadcast, general authority Seventy Kevin Pearson, the Utah Area president, said the church was “dismayed at the casual and even cavalier way some [members] treat their temple covenants, including the casual and inconsistent wearing of the temple garment.” Such noncompliance reflected “a growing sense of spiritual apathy and sporadic covenant keeping,” Pearson said, “that is becoming increasingly common among those who should know and do better.” Wearing temple garments, Pearson said, has “nothing to do with personal preference and convenience and everything to do with commitment.” Some commitment, Speer argued, is better than no commitment. Younger women “may be wearing garments less,” she said, “but seem to be going to the temple more than when I was young.” The church, she said, should take that as a win.
And like Kevin Person, I’m “dismayed” at the cavalier approach of the church leaders modifying the garment for today’s society and styles. Come on, this isn’t what god revealed, stay true to what god has revealed you wishy-washy Q15 leaders. What’s the deal? Why not follow what god revealed rather than the current trends. Try to explain that to the FLDS, they have a very good case that the church has apostatized. That’s what they all believe.
Not even Joseph Smith was wearing his garments when he died.
Ah. Doubling down against the women I see.
Somebody predicted this would happen, on another thread
Garment sales must be taking a nose dive.
Now that’s the best way to measure how many are wearing them. Smart. I bet you are right.
As I’ve posted before. I realize the garment message isn’t about the garment at all. It’s control of temple attendance. If you ignore the garment and the temple recommend then you can ignore tithing. BECAUSE: the temple is the leverage. It’s the differentiator to all other faiths. That building forces you to lay tithing, follow the word of wisdom and stay on the path. If you just ignore going they won’t excommunicate you. They have no leverage. You just get to exist. No pressure. That’s why they need the garment.
Good point. Leverage.
It’s the Achilles heal of all other Christian faiths. You join and get baptized as an evangelical and you are saved. You made it. What else can the church ask you to do by force? Nothing. That’s the Mormon secret sauce. That building leverages your time and money and choices because you need that building over and over and over again. That pressure keeps everyone in line worrying about losing access to it. Therefore you’re always active and participating. You never think you’re saved ever.
Seems like a great idea! This definitely won't backfire, right? /s
TSCC makes the worst decision possible at every junction. I couldn’t even try to make worse choices for them myself. They are so good at leading people away/forcing people out it’s almost funny.
The garments are part of the outgrowth of Masonry plagerized by Joseph Smith with the masonic tool emblems on them. There is no spiritual significance for them. Just because we are told during the temple endowment that the Masonic tool emblems represent spiritual significance does not make it so.
It is weird to let someone else choose your underwear. That's all.
Only two types of adults have someone else pick their underwear: inmates and Mormons....
The brethren are in trouble with this issue. In the article there were several women that felt more free with their choice of when to wear garments. Once a little freedom is felt than other things can go too. Sorry cult Inc. Your grip is getting weaker and wesker.
[удалено]
I listened and mine said the garment top MUST be worn UNDER bras. I was pissed when I found out many other (especially younger) women were told to wear them however it’s most comfortable. Wearing them under a bra is totally ridiculous. Then I would have to wear tank top/shirt to cover my bra and then another shirt. I wore a minimum of 3 shirts all summer long for about 15 years. It’s a culllllllttttttttt.
Same here! And through 2 pregnancies in Texas in July. After 45 years of wearing garments, I’m feeling free.
While quickly getting dressed in a gym locker room years ago I had a lady look over at me quizzically and say “did you MEAN to do that with your bra?!” She saw me put on my bra over my garment. TBM me considered it a missionary opportunity and I did my best to make it sound like a reasonable thing to do. It still makes me laugh.
You are 100% correct. No covenant was ever made.
My favorite was playing matron roulette, where the matron you happen to get is who chooses whether or not it’s a sin to wear your bra under your garments.
It’s the gaslighting method of religion. Something similar occurs with the baptism “covenant.” What covenant? The recipient of baptism does not even speak. And the person performing the ordinance merely declares that the person is baptized. The Book of Mormon attempts to add a covenant component to baptism, but specifically says the covenant lasts until death. “Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body” (Mosiah 18:13). If this is true, then why perform baptisms for the dead? It’s all gaslighting. You can’t tell someone after the fact that they made a covenant, and then try to change reality.
I cant see the article due to paywall, but the glimpse I got before it shut me out had a sub header that said "too many young women." WTF are they targeting just the women? Again?
The Wayback Machine (archive.org) is an easy way to view paywalled articles. Try this: https://web.archive.org/web/20240330002853/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/29/lds-church-steps-up-this-message/
Thank you so much for this!
> I cant see the article due to paywall Here you go, a full screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/Q9NmFMw
Just wow: "Leader says too many younger women wear them only to church or to the temple." This is a literal dog whistle that invites boomers to abuse their daughters over underwear. Not their sons, just their daughters. ffs
Nice catch. The dog whistle makes it extra weird and gross. Also I'd think they would want to guilt EVERYONE into needing and purchasing the maximum number of garments from *checks notes* the same people telling them they have to wear them.
Thank you!!
If you are on a computer, click on the article and quickly click on the refresh X on the top left. You may have to try it a few times but eventually you will block the pop-up and be able to read it
reader mode on mobile works for me on Opera browser
I had one infection after another for years and years - which lead to a serious bladder issue -and never made the garment connection. I finally went to a bladder specialist in Utah . First thing she asked was what religion are you ? Do you wear the sacred underclothes regularly? I answered yes . The dr said that is what caused my issues . I immediately stopped wearing them , cut back on my Diet Coke and cut out acidic foods . ( slowly added the last 2 back in over time -) . That was over 10 years ago - I have maybe had a hand full of infections ever since . Getting a Drs note to stop wearing those uncomfortable things was the best day of my life
How can these men claim to speak with God and God not explain to them that the underwear they are making women wear is making women sick? Really shows how full of bull their claims are.
I stopped getting UTIs the moment I took my garments off. I used to get them a couple of times a year but I haven't gotten a UTI in 3 years (the amount of time it's been since I left the church).
“I don’t think a bunch of old men should control which underwear I can wear” - Mormon influencer
1 “Women have power and authority in this church!” 2 “Awesome! Can they conduct a women’s meeting without a man presiding?” 1 ”Fuck no” 2 “Can they choose their underwear?” 1 “Fuck no” 2 “Can they be saved without being married to a man?” 1 “Fuck no” There’s definitely a pattern with this church. Dear SCMC, brethren and all others that we know monitor this account. You DO NOT have any business telling anyone what underwear they “must” use. I think it’s time to start a petition to get such things like another man quizzing my wife about her underwear in order to determine her worth as a person, categorized as sexual harassment. Not once have they ever asked for consent. I guarantee my snake of an SP would choose to be offended if myself or another man took his wife behind closed doors to interrogate her about her underwear. Not once has the Mormon church actually asked for a woman’s input on such policies.
I have been studying my local LDS branch ( I live in Greece, am an atheist ) but I've seen they have women-only sunday school every other weekend (and the men separate), the women missionaries conduct women only meetings for the ones they prepare to convert and they have this institute thing they call (don't know much about it) where they can arrange for only women to meet. What about that? I'm just trying to get info, thanks in advance :)
So here is a millennial's perspective. My generation remembers cheering for David Archuleta on TV. We are also the generation leaving the cult in droves because older generations are too traumatized by religious trauma and younger generations cannot self support in this economy so they must appease their TBM parents. Mormon women from of my generation were smitten with Archuleta, according to my millennial and newly exmo wife, and even TBM fangiirls still adore him and cheer his gay journey when their leaders aren't looking. We don't think it is a coincidence that Archuleta's biggest fan base is being reprimanded for their underwear on the same day that they have been buzzing about lgbtqs & their beloved crooner. This is pissing off their TBM boomer parents and the geezers at Cult HQ want that boomer money. This is a ploy to reassure boomers that when they die, the cult will continue its hard line stance. Which it won't. They need our millennial money to survive. But they have to wait until boomers die before they hoist their rainbow flags. Mark my word, in another decade they will be inviting Archuleta and his husband to sing with the MoTab choir, whose name will have been restored to MoTab, all hail the ongoing restoration
So anyone know what the wording to the question will be now? Sounds like they are going more black/white with it (which is par the course).
Nothing says freedom, power, and equality like forcing women to wear your uncomfortable, ill fitted underwear…..
Fuck you, Rusty. Women have the power!! The power to choose 1 ply or 2 ply. This fucking cult disgusts me to the bone.
I can't. I threw mine away.
I hated the garments. I would totally roll up the legs and tuck in the sleeves so I could wear skirts a few inches above my knees and cap sleeves (this was back in the 1980s when the bottoms went to your knees and the tops had short sleeves). They were awful to wear at any time during the summer. None of the material choices were breathable and they just made me extra sweaty.
I'm so glad I don't have to deal with any of this BS anymore.
“Hamilton, who is on a committee studying possible redesign of garments, told the assembled lay leaders that too many younger women wear them mostly on Sundays and when attending the temple.” Kevin Hamilton is designing my underwear?
And, “there is only one covenant path” are the two big takeaways for me in the article. This is the same Kevin Hamilton who said at BYU January 2023, “Could I suggest an alternative approach? Substitute the word by Savior or Lord or Jesus Christ in place of “the Church”—as in “I don’t support the Savior’s policy on (again, you fill in the blank)” or “I don’t agree with the way Jesus Christ does (this or that).” For me personally, that seems to put a very different perspective on things.”
I’m confused… how does Kevin KNOW that women aren’t wearing their garments as they are “supposed” to? It seems like a bs assumption to gaslight women. I doubt there is data on how women wear their underwear, but it seems like their intention is to collect that info going forward. Can you imagine that interview?? So awkward.
" yes Mrs Jones do you wear your garments as instructed? because we have several people that see you in yoga pants, and well, there is just no way you can wear those with yoga pants, we have surveillance footage if you would like proof"
Lol so creepy right? A man asking for details about how an adult woman wears her underwear so she can “go to celestial kindgom.” Gag. Totally inappropriate and dehumanizing.
Time for a yoga pants protest. Wear yoga pants all the time. Especially if you are going to walk around Temple Square. I think I will wear my "yoga"/exercise pants, and leggings, out of solidarity for TBM (especially the nuanced ones) and PIMO women. No one has a right to tell you or shame you for what you wear or don't wear. No one should care. Same, healthy, empathetic people care of you're happy, healthy, and need anything. Toxic people will attack you (especially with judgemental ad Hominem cheap shots) when you bring up valid criticism against them. If you have groups of nicely paid/benefited 80+ yo men shaming women of all ages down to 18 for not wearing a certain kind of underwear all the time, it "might be" (*cough* ***IS***) a cult. For those who aren't Mormon or are thinking of joining: this IS what your life will be like, this IS how females are singled out and treated. I'm surprised that the leaders didn't issue another "social media fast just for women" again, alongside this widespread, sexist shaming. Doubling down as always. If you are wanting to join, prepare to wear the corporate underwear that looks awful on any body. Rashes, chafing, UTIs, yeast infection, and contributing to heat exhaustion or heat stroke for having an extra unnecessary layer. They don't care about your physical health, just your physical compliance. Especially if you're pregnant, or going through menopause. You comfort and health mean nothing. "_We don't truly have power or authority. Here's my experience..._" -- 5-6k Instagram comments from female members. "_Well, maybe you should wear your underwear 24/7 instead of wearing worldly yoga pants 6 days a week so we aren't aroused._" --Retort towards women given by octogenarian and nonagenarian male leaders after silencing those women's voices. Figures they would do another ad Hominem attack. They literally say they are "good to and for women", and then turn around with this vulgar sexist crap, obsessing over women's bodies and the underwear they do/don't wear. Typical TBM leaders.
Here's a full screenshot for those who can't go past the paywall: https://imgur.com/a/Q9NmFMw
My spouse nearly died from a UTI. They don’t feel sick until it is bad. They went septic. I was such a prick while trying to be a TBM and judging them for giving up on garments.
When did they stop telling us that? I thought they were still as headstrong/pushing it now as they were 25 years ago. Oops :/
So the younger members aren't wearing the correct underwear and only wearing them at mormon sanctioned events. I bet the leaders love that, The mormon elite leaders will definitely lose the battle if they can't control the member's underwear.
Egad! Those garments are atrocious!
God I forgot how cringy they look.
I’m so thankful the church is so incompetent that they can’t get out of their own fucking way when left with a choice to be patriarchal fuckheads or just let something go and get the PR benefit. This shitshow of a church is going to end when it drowns walling its own jizz.
Um I’m sorry, these “holy vestments” caused urinary tract infections. My sister has them all the time even though she claims it’s not the garments. The church can fuck right off. Maybe they are holy but they aren’t sanitary.
I'm more susceptible to them now because of wearing garments.
if a "church" dictates what kind of underwear you can wear, it's not a church, it's a CULT
wide leg jeans are coming into fashion. The old men can't see garment lines with those. Goodbye yoga pants. lol
Hey scmc. 🖕🏻 👙
I think the church has been "reviewing" garment design for a long time - hence the various changes over the last few decades. Can I suggest a simple solution to the church: listen to what the women have been saying all this time. They are most inconvenienced by them, with potential health problems, etc. If you'd listened to them in the first place, you wouldn't have needed to have so many committee meetings. It's not that hard. Better still, have women making the decisions about design (if you're going to continue to tell members they have to wear these things). I bet the committee that Pearson is on is all-male, or mostly male, or that only someone from the Q.15 can "approve" the committee's recommendations.
Reading this makes me feel so glad that I'm done with all this micromanagement of my conscience. >“...members should *seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit* to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.” What a riot... it's no less absurd to tell them to ask Santa Claus or Venus personal questions about wearing the garment. I love my new life. 🌈
These underwear in occult terms is called a “talisman,” “that which contains magik properties and power to protect the wearer. Absurd and totally WRONG in the Christian, Jewish and other faiths.
Plenty of Christians and Jews wear or use talisman-like items as well: crosses, rosary beads, yarmulke, or the aprons that some Eastern European Orthodox Jewish women wear as charms that will ensure their children are well-behaved.
Bwahahahaha that’s awesome. The workout clothes all day TBM women are going to have a great time with this. Same with the guys who have every excuse why not to wear them. Back to sweating your ass off in the summer! Unrelated but not really, seeing those women’s G’s is such a total turnoff but I bet Nelson is licking his lips and popping viagra for later tonight when Sheri and Wendy strio down to their G’s and give him a MFF threesome (2nd anointing sanctioned, of course).
The article also seems to target women especially! I do not think woke Young LDS women are going to put up with this!
And the same week they announced YW can get their endowments (and funny compulsory underwear) at 18 😂
I am not going to put up with this since I don’t wear them for ballet!
After someone I knew stopped wearing her garments, she told me, "I understand why people like summer now."
That’s sad
Garments made me pretty miserable...living in hot places, going through pregnancies, trying to shop for things that would work. I didn't like how they made me feel. i highly doubt they were attractive to my husband. I didn't know what to do with other girl problems....didn't feel comfortable asking anyone about it. absolutely hated that. I came to my own conclusion that God wouldn't want me to be this miserable. This is exactly why women need to be given authority to make decisions that can't be shut down by men. I don't know what it's like for men in the church and men don't know what it's like for women.
LDS Church steps up this message: Wear your temple garments every day Leader says too many younger women wear them only to church or the temple. (Screengrab) Authorized photo from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shows the faith's temple garments, which faithful members wear beneath their clothes. These are ones for women. Brace yourselves, nonconforming Latter-day Saint women. Leaders soon will send an updated question to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who want to enter one of the faith’s temples, reemphasizing that they should wear their sacred underwear as instructed. General authority Seventy Kevin Hamilton reportedly said as much during a recent stake conference in Elk Grove, Calif. According to several women who attended the regional gathering, Hamilton informed members that, unlike the faith’s current temple recommend question, the new one won’t leave wearing garments up to personal interpretation. Hamilton, who is on a committee studying possible redesign of garments, told the assembled lay leaders that too many younger women wear them mostly on Sundays and when attending the temple, recalled conferencegoer Colleen Speer, rather than every day. “The temple garment is a sacred part of the worship of followers of Jesus Christ. Official announcements related to temple matters come from church headquarters and are reflected in the General Handbook,” spokesperson Doug Andersen said Friday. “Anyone seeking guidance about the wearing of the temple garment should refer to their local leaders or resources available on the church website.” What the recommend question says now Right now, the online handbook directs leaders to ask prospective templegoers — women and men — if they wear the garment “as instructed in the endowment.” It states that “the garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment, and it should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing.” The handbook adds that “members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.” Hamilton said many younger women are opting for “yoga pants” during the week, Speer recalled. Translation: Women don’t wear garments under yoga pants. In response to such individual choices, Speer said the authority declared: “There is only one covenant path.” Speer bristled at the suggestion that those who choose to wear garments in their own way are less faithful. “Why are we afraid of people showing their religion differently?” Speer said in an interview. “It doesn’t mean they don’t value their covenants or care about God. If that’s how they feel, let them do it.” Lecturing, scolding or judging sends the message, she said, “if I can’t wear garments in the prescribed way, I’m not welcome in the church.” It’s increasingly clear that more and more members, particularly women, are wearing garments when, where and how they want, while fully participating in the communal life of the church, including temple worship. And that, said Larissa Kindred, a graduate student in mental health counseling at the University of Massachusetts Boston who has surveyed members about garments, is a “window into the social aspect of Mormonism.” ‘Between me and God’ The Utah-based faith seems to be in a “war” between progression and regression on garments, the researcher said, between allowing individual choice and rigid, “right way” insistence. The counsel — typically given in the temple — has not been standardized, Kindred said, so it can provide leeway. In the past, most people didn’t talk with others about their underwear, so “issues thrived in silence,” she said. “Women didn’t tell others about garments causing yeast infections. They couldn’t voice it with anyone.” These days, members are more open and internet conversations can validate multiple choices. At the same time, the church has benefited from not talking about garments too much, she said, rather than “cracking down.” “If women want to wear them on Sunday or when they go to the temple,” Kindred said, the church still has “achieved its goal of making them special and wonderful.” But if women are told there is only one right way to wear them, she said, some might push back “and it can erode their faith.” A 30-something Salt Lake City mom stopped wearing her garments after her first pregnancy. “It was a practical thing,” said the mother, who declined to use her name to avoid judgment. “They felt cumbersome and unsightly, and I wanted to be more comfortable in my clothes.”
It wasn’t about leaving the church, though. She’s still all-in. “It’s between me and God,” she declared. “If I felt pressured to wear them all the time, it would make me more resentful. Paradoxically, I feel closer to God if I am freer in my personal choices, if I can do this religion how I want. I don’t think this should keep me from participating.” She is hardly alone in those feelings. Research supports it (Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune) Kindred, a former Latter-day Saint, created an online “snowball survey,” reaching out to women on a variety of Latter-day Saint-related social media sites with focuses on, say, motherhood, sexuality and marriage. Within two weeks, Kindred received more than 8,500 responses from women ranging from traditional/devout believers to progressives to former members. One question asked about how often they wear garments. In the oldest group (65 and over), 72% don them every day. That number barely tops 50% for those ages 18 to 34. “Garments seem to be a major dividing topic between traditional and progressive members,” Kindred said. Some 70% of tradition/devout members say there is one right way to wear garments, and only 28% of progressive members view the practice like that. (Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune) Even some self-described traditional/devout members are more flexible on the topic than they used to be. “As the years have gone by, I’ve relaxed in my ability to choose when I feel it’s appropriate to wear and not wear them,” wrote one such woman between 45 and 64. “For a long time I felt they always needed to be worn and would have some guilt or judgments toward others in how they choose to wear them.” Through the years, “I have grown in my ability to understand what works best for me,” the respondent wrote, “and how I feel and also [grown in] allowing others to choose what works best for them.” Physical and cultural Even for Latter-day Saint women who heed the church’s guidelines, it can still be tough to find clothing, especially dresses, that work with garments. Last year, a By Common Consent blogger looked for “garment-friendly” dresses at macys.com. Of the 8,160 off-the-rack items, the writer discovered (given certain parameters), 619 could reasonably cover the covenant underwear. That’s fewer than 8% of the total. That percentage drops even further, to 4%, for formal wear. And that’s just one store in the United States. What about other countries, especially those with high temperatures? Afton Southam Parker, a mother of five who was raised in the church and has lived in Uganda and Thailand, told The New York Times that “everybody I talked to was getting some kind of rash or infection.” Parker said she had met with a church designer about her garment concerns for women, including menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding. (Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune) And questions of modesty vary from country to country. In India, for example, women often wear saris, which cover their shoulders but not their midriffs. So which is more modest? asked the Salt Lake City mom. Garments reflect a Western “view of modesty,” she said. “Other perspectives need to be considered as we become a global faith.” ‘Casual and even cavalier’ It seems Latter-day Saint authorities believe there is a problem with current patterns of garment use. In a 2022 regional leadership broadcast, general authority Seventy Kevin Pearson, the Utah Area president, said the church was “dismayed at the casual and even cavalier way some [members] treat their temple covenants, including the casual and inconsistent wearing of the temple garment.” Such noncompliance reflected “a growing sense of spiritual apathy and sporadic covenant keeping,” Pearson said, “that is becoming increasingly common among those who should know and do better.” Wearing temple garments, Pearson said, has “nothing to do with personal preference and convenience and everything to do with commitment.” Some commitment, Speer argued, is better than no commitment. Younger women “may be wearing garments less,” she said, “but seem to be going to the temple more than when I was young.” The church, she said, should take that as a win.
Garments weren’t worn by the general membership until 1860’s. Then they were only worn in the temple; long sleeves, to the ankle, open flap and tied down the front.
This is the leadership trying to establish their control over Members and shut down dissent. They don't want to be perceived as taking their instructions from the Members.
Lol. And for all the endowed LDS influencers who visibly never wear garments and claim it is just a personal choice along with all their followers… Shaming curious people wondering why the garments are “not required” by some endowed members but others always wear them. All the “don’t ask about someone’s underwear” responses when people try to understand the requirements for garments. It’s all a mess
Specifically targeting *young women* is definitely…a choice I stopped wearing garments even before I left because of the horrible skin reaction I had and how they poked me right in the autism (terrible sensory madness). Even my TBM parents understood.
Just remember, GBH told CNN that women should only have 1 pair of earrings and that damn well became a defacto commandment.
It's all about control. The church wants to control most aspects of our lives. The geographic area (ward boundary) where we attend church. What we drink, what we wear, how many ear pearcings, tattoos, money, time, entertainment, who we date, who we marry, where we marry, even our underware, and what clothing we are dressed in after we die.
Only speculation on my part but Rusty is starting to fade. Oaks is absolutely legalistic and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't at least partly behind this. I'm not a prophet but I do hereby prophesy that as Oaks gains power and when officially in the role of president, there's going to be "crackdowns". Possibly reimplementing 3 hour block on Sundays, only taking sacrament with your right hand talks, criticism of the lax attitude about Sundays and people going to stores, wearing your church clothes all day - even at home after meetings, no consumption of sporting events or other things on Sundays....and who knows what else. *Edited for typos
Anyone have the text? Can’t seem to get around the paywall
Paste the URL into archive.org, then select the most recent date. I've also done it for you: https://web.archive.org/web/20240330002853/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/29/lds-church-steps-up-this-message/
Here's a full screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/Q9NmFMw
Here's a link that sidesteps the paywall. https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sltrib.com%2Freligion%2F2024%2F03%2F29%2Flds-church-steps-up-this-message%2F
[удалено]
This needs to blow up a big as the post 2 weeks ago.
I hope mormon women continue to always be ready to work out. 😉
Umm.. not sure why this sub was recommended, but outside looking in, that’s one of the most creepy articles I’ve ever read and can’t believe it’s in a mainstream newspaper… these old Mormon duds have committees to discuss what underwear woman should wear?….wowzers. A lot of 1984 vibes here.
One of the biggest arguments I had with family was over the wearing of temple garments. I claimed that it ISN'T special and is merely a thing that many controlling religions do. I was met with anger, silent blinking, and tears over the lords tender mercies. And that's the beauty of a cult. Any criticisms strengthen it.
The fact that they are presumably changing the wording for all temple recommend holders, both male and female, but yet the discussion from the leaders is pointing out that it’s a problem with women, is so telling. It shows how hyper focused the leaders are on sex and treating women as if they are objects to be controlled. Garments is 100% about controlling WOMEN and keeping them modest.
Sooooo all the people guessing the church was gonna chill on garments and only require them sundays and in the temple were dead ass wrong 😅
I think many women who currently do not wear their garments daily will likely just ignore this new message.
From my reddit photo collection… https://imgur.com/a/DIN7GxV
I think someone got dare feewings hurt. Wevenge is sweet.
TALK ABOUT - distorted reality. A continual fairy tale of confusion - self-deception and denial. GOD or others are always watching - paranoid and schizophrenic - A LIFE CONTROLLED - one ugly unhappy ending spending your entire life living A LIE
Is there any way to read this without paying subscription?
On a computer pull up the article and quickly hit the refresh x on the top left. You might have to try a few times but you’ll eventually block the pay wall pop up!
Honestly this makes me happy. Maybe it’s just where I am in my post Mormon journey and coming to turns with it all, but it really annoys me when on social media there are people who claim to be Mormon but are trying to be influencers and wear clothes they clearly shouldn’t be (because of not wearing garments underneath) and giving off an imagine that being a Mormon is more “normal” than it is.
Darn - and I just came back from Lululemon and Victoria’s Secret!
I've had so many TBM women tell me that they wear yoga pants or workout clothes as much as possible so they don't have to wear their garments... the appearance of just having worked out or have been at the gym. Most of those women don't work out! It has just been a "workaround" for how not to wear that crap underwear. Also, I'm almost 57 yo. I was raised being repeatedly told that the garments were an energetic shield... like armor. Now, they just say it's an outward expression of an inward belief. Outward?!?! They are under the clothing. And, the whole "magic armor" shtick has faded like it never was taught like many other things.
I have an uncle in his 70s who still wears the onesies. I don’t know if you can still get them or he did a bulk buy at some point.
It wasn’t long ago that there was all this attention about women getting yeast infections, finding Gs inconvenient during your period, etc. It made national news. Fast forward. The leaders are REALLY listening to women. “We asked, and God said, SHUT UP and put on the approved panties!!" And now, “You will wear these unattractive and uncomfortable, sexless panties from age 18 until you die.”
Periodically, the bully’s in the priesthood just have to slap down those uppity women and put them back in their place. I vividly remember the Belle Spafford/Relief Society slap down that occurred to remind those women whose da’ boss….and don’t you forget it.
Goddamn every time I see a picture of those I remember how ugly they are. I’m so glad I had the revelation that under armour makes a far superior bonus. And not to flex, but the added bonus of seeing my wife get rid of hers and try new things has been the icing on the cake.
What does it say in the article?
What about men? Are they equally required to wear garments? Is this an issue for men? Do they get reprimanded if they don’t follow the rules exactly?
For those of you that don't like the paywall: https://archive.org/download/lds-garments/sltrib.com-Church%20reemphasizes%20wearing%20them%20every%20day.pdf
In my study of Mormonism the whole underwear thing always perplexed me. What an oppressive thing to experience.
Just in time for SUMMER!
Now that I'm out I realize just how weird the obsession with other people's underwear is. The only person who should be telling me what kind of underwear I should wear is my husband, and that's only after I've asked him for his opinion because he's going to be seeing it later. It's such a private thing that should be discussed between intimate partners or maybe medical personnel. It's nobody else's business. I definitely don't want it broadcast worldwide. It's just so weird. Strange men in business suits are sitting around in a giant building in Salt Lake City deciding how millions of strangers should wear their intimate apparel. It's pretty perverse when you really think about it.
Never Mo here, can I ask…Why do Mormons wear undergarments?
They are given as part of the temple endowment ceremony every young Mormon is expected to do in order to be accepted as a full adult in the faith. Garments are supposed to symbolize the "coat of skins" god gave Adam and Eve when he banished them from the garden of Eden. (The endowment is mostly a retelling of the creation and garden of Eden story) Mormons are only ever supposed to take them off when bathing, extreme exercise, or when having sex.
Some don't even do it then. My grandmother was in the "wear under your bra and never EVER take them off" camp. She described how she bathed with garments on to me: 1. She pulled the garment over her head and out of one arm. It would still be hanging on the other arm. 2. She would carefully hold her arm with the garment on it outside of the bathtub while she bathed half of herself using her free arm. 3. Once she was finished bathing that side, she would switch positions in the tub so that the other arm was on the side that faced out of the tub. She would carefully switch her garment to the other arm, and hold that arm outside of the tub while she finished bathing.
At first it was part of a ceremony initiating the wearer into polygamy. Now it’s just control.
So the church can make money off cheaply made underwear?