I think it’s a given that there are many endowed members in the Church who do not wear garments. I’ve always wondered how they come to the decision to stop wearing them. I mean one day they are wearing them, and the next day they’re not. It’s not like they slowly disappear over time.
And for those who do not vehemently oppose the church, I wonder what went through their minds when the decision was made, if a decision was made.
huh? Since when have I ever given the impression that I am always right? Unlike some people I could mention.
I actually said you have NOT done any name calling here. See comment #137.
My belief is that Jesus Christ is not a childish name-caller, that sometimes scriptures have been mistranslated and I don’t believe He has ever called anyone names. *I* believe. Good grief. What’s wrong with suggesting that the Saviour was/is a mature adult?
“… purple-faced hyperbole …”
How ironic that a description of my use of hyperbole could be such an outstanding example of the concept itself.
i end up dressed under like a gentile for days at a time, but it’s not on purpose (yeah, that sounds like denial to me too.) i have a hard time keeping up with the laundry and i only have four sets. actually, i have a hard time keeping up with everything, which looks like grief or depression but must be something else.
soon i’m finding it’s easier not to wear garments. so often i’ve done my best to get dressed to leave the house and find out my white-undershirted belly is hanging out between the jeans and the target t-shirt. i hate that what natural embarrassment i might have over low-class fatness is now a shame-inducing blasphemous sin of temple disrespect, no matter how equally unintentional. easier not to leave the house. easier not to order proper underthings, and not worry about what happens to my shirt if I lift my arms. easier to claim plausible deniability.
so, my husband on a business trip lately called me from a distribution center and got me some more. which was a godsend, since i wasn’t doing it and would have been content to stay in limbo, wringing my hands and watching the few sets i have wear out and be gone.
problem solved, right? ha. today, i’m still wearing what i went running in, because i’m out of laundry and i have no idea where i put the new garments.
garments, like tithing, demands a level of competency. tithing imposes some money management skills, and garments impose some laundry and modesty skills. they put a peg in the wall. when i can’t reach the peg, i don’t know that i’m glad i have something to reach for and measure against.
As a male garment wearer in the church, I have a question that has been on my mind for a long time. Nothing I have ever read or heard has cleared up the issue, and I don’t mean any offense by asking. I’m truly interested in the response?
What is proper garment wearing procedure for women who are having their period?
Do they not wear them at all for fear of soiling them? Do they only wear the top half? Do they wear them regardless?
I believe that women can wear underwear underneath their garments. Not everyone does though. If you can put a pad inwithout regular underwear that can help.
Thanks Mary, I appreciate the reply. I hope the question wasn’t too inapropriate.
I don’t see why it would inappropriate. I have heard much more inappropriate ones :)
Has ltbugaf gone inactive? I could use the PC word of less active.
Did he get his feelings hurt and start attending a different web site? I guess his testimony of this web site was not has strong as he thought. Hum – I wonder if people go inactive at Church because their feelings get hurt and it has nothing to do with their testimony.
Maybe same thing with taking off ones garments.
Do more men or more women quit wearing garments? I think more women do it then men.
Bill
“Do more men or more women quit wearing garments? I think more women do it then men.”
I would be interested in knowing how you came to this conclusion?
I’d probably agree with Bill on this one (did I just type that?) – due to the fact that the men’s garments arent much different that what they’d be wearing anyway.
Whereas the women are missing out on so much more by wearing garments.
There is seemingly no end to the underwear options available to women – it makes the women’s observance that much more of a sacrifice, and would lead (I believe) in women not wearing garments more than the men.
…just my 1.87 cents
I find garments much more comfortable than conventional underwear. And truly, not that much of a sacrifice.
Ah, but do you find them more comfortable than unconventional underwear?
yes.
Mary – If you read the thread and in real life – it is usually a women who complains about garments and the men tend to preach at the women about why they must wear garments.
A man’s two piece is much like a t shirt and biker shorts where a woman’s does not flatter her.
At least you don’t have to wear the old style with the button in the back. Of course in Canada that might be the preferred style.
why would it be the preferred style in Canada? Because it is “always cold here”? Nope, it isn’t. And we are in SOUTHERN Alberta, maybe way up north, but it’s pretty darn warm here, and even during the summer sometimes.
I have never had a man preach to me about why I should wear garments. And I don’t notice that more women than men wear garments. And I don’t wear my garments to show off for anyone. And not all men wear two-piece. And my husband thinks I am just as sexy in my garments as I am in anything else. And that’s all I am going to say on THAT matter.
I mean, I haven’t notice more women than men complain about wearing garments.
Oh and one more thing, do you think women are more interested in fashion than anything else? I just wondered about the “flatter her” comment. My primary purpose in being dressed is comfort.
ewwwwwwwwwwww Mary that was TOO much information lol
More women complain about garments than men.
I do not know about the % of men to women that wear garments.
Mary said – And my husband thinks I am just as sexy in my garments as I am in anything else.
This would be a tough one for your husband to answer. 2 Nephi 9:34.
LOL, Mum
Bill, do you know all the women in the world who wear garments, do they talk to you personally about their gripes with garments? I would venture to guess they do not. I would also venture to guess I talk to women about garment wearing a lot more than you do, seeing as how most women are not to keen on talking about it with members of the opposite gender unless they happen to be married to said members.
You are calling my husband a liar? Why would you say that? You are saying he lies to me about finding me attractive, even wearing garments? Well that shows how much you know. Nothing. I think after 11 years of marriage I know him much better than you do. Oh guess what, he isn’t big on all the fancy doo-dads that Victoria Secret seems to think make women more attractive. He also prefers me without make-up. I see why. Women are beautiful without extras. Why improve on what God made? That includes frilly clothes or whatever modern society deems makes a woman prettier. Natural IS beautiful.
Oh and Bill, I suppose I should take that as an insult to me. Or to Kim, that you think he is so shallow as to care what sort of underwear or clothes I wear, as if that is more important than *I* am, to him. You have it all wrong. And if you think men are truly so shallow as to think that the clothes make the woman, you have a poor opinion of men everywhere. I believe they are smarter than that.
Wooooooo – I did not say all of that. You said “And my husband thinks I am just as sexy in my garments as I am in anything else.”
I do not believe that for one second. I also believe that he has to agree with you to keep piece with you. I think you have placed him in an unfair situtation.
Garments are not sexy. Never have been, never will be. Were not meant to be sexy.
I trust he loves you and desires you and finds you sexy but I do not believe he finds garments sexy.
Bill
Now you are confusing you.
Kim has never had to “keep peace with me”. He doesn’t lie to me. Believe it or not as you like, but we made a pact a long time ago to never lie to each other. I didn’t say the garments are sexy, or that he said garments are sexy. I said he thinks *I* am sexy, whether I wear garments, or something else.
What I am saying is that you said “where a woman’s does not flatter her.”
We don’t wear garments to flatter us. We wear them because we made a covenant to do so. What I am challenging is your contention that more women complain about wearing them than men do. This has not been my experience. I personally find them more comfortable than “conventional” underwear and I don’t think I am necessarily in the minority. And why would women wear them to flatter themselves anymore than men would?
If you think I need to keep peace in our marriage, Bill, then you obviously have no idea how our marriage operates.
“I said he thinks *I* am sexy, whether I wear garments, or something else.”
Or nothing.
I guess the challenge is on. Are there any men out there who actually complain/dislike wearing garments?
If so, please tell why.
Women – this is your chance to also explain if/why you dislike wearing them.
I personally believe the men have a better style and fit then women do. Looks more normal and fits more normal.
I do think quality control for g’s is something else. 1/2 inch either way is within specs. 1/2 inch too big and 1/2 inch too small is consider in spec. I just wish they would all fit the same.
There are 2 reasons that I will not wear Garments.
1. Extreme discomfort. I realised that God does not want us to be in pain for them. I used to suffer red raw sweat rashes in the summer months, so painful that I could not sleep, and sometimes too painful to walk. At the first sign of rash now, I do the best thing for my health/comfort, and go without, until I am over it. Since adopting this reasoning I have been pain free.
2. Situations where I have to change clothing in front of others. I have to change in a communal changing area at work. I have to change clothing several times a day. When there is an emergency call, if I am not already “suited up”, then we have to change very quickly into our drysuits, and then respond. There is no time to go somewhere else, any delays could mean loss of life, and I do not want my colleagues to make fun, or for me to feel embarrassment about them.
Apart from the 2 situations above, I wear them, and I feel that the choices I have made are wise under the circumstances.
I understand your dilema about the rash. I used to get rashes often. There is a new material that garments are made of called Dri-Lock that you should try. I have not had a rash since I started wearing it except one time. I went camping/hiking (64 miles) with my son’s Boy Scout Troop to Philmont for 2 weeks and we went without showering for a few days during the trek. Camp suds and a clean pair of garments did the trick. For those who have been to Philmont, the hot water was wonderful.
I can understand not wanting to be embarrassed by your beliefs. Smoking, drinking and watching porno movies with your work buddies is also necessary so you are not embarrassed by your beliefs.
I would think wearing your G’s in dangerous situtations would be a benefit. My father used to work with fire and sometimes his clothes would catch fire. I know that my father was never burned where his garments covered his body but the rest of his body has burn scars on it. My father was in a gasoline fire and his arms for example had 3rd degree burns up to the point where the garments started and then he has perfect skin. I’m sure my father would have died if he had not been wearing his garments. They truly are a protection when worn my fatihful members.
Do not wash the Dri-Lock in hot water or bleach.
On the other hand, I cut myself in the leg with a bow saw once, and the saw cut right through my garments as well.
“…the saw cut right through my garments as well”
Oh my stars and garters!
It’s an anti-miracle!
:P
Sorry to hear about your leg. Hope you still have it. Did the G’s slow down the saw enough for you to still have a leg? Did you have to replace the dull blade or was it still sharp?
The Lord does not stop us from doing crazy things.
Rick – What is an anti-miracle?
It was a single stroke. It’d take a lot more than one stroke for a bow saw to cut off my leg. The blade was nearly new, so it was still very sharp.
bill, if we claim that events that save us from harm are unilaterally miraculous (as seems to be the standard operating practise in mormondom and the ‘nacle in particular) then events where a miracle could (should?) have happened and did not must be anti-miracles, no?
Clearly, Kim must not be paying enough tithing, or had an impure thought; otherwise the blade should have miraculously bounced off his holy garment, right?
“the blade should have miraculously bounced off his holy garment”
I think it should have shattered, not bounced.
I defer to your greater knowledge of the holy vestment, Kim.
:)
God does not protect us from being stupid:
Kim – To me a Bow saw is a hand saw that is used to cut tree limbs. Is this the same in Canada?
How could you cut your leg if you are sawing a tree limb? Shaving your legs maybe?
Bill said:
“God does not protect us from being stupid:”
Oh sometimes he does. I have seen some people do some pretty stupid things and get rescued in spite of themselves.
Why on EARTH would Kim be shaving his legs? Especially while doing yard work? I know you are trying to be funny.
Kim what is it with you and your Dad cutting your legs with saws??? Do I have to ground you both from playing with big boy toys?
I spent some time in England and I saw a number of tree trunks I mean legs on English women that needed a chain saw to cut the branches I mean hair off. Why not a bow saw?
Do the men in Canada shave their armpits like the blokes in England do?
Yes, that is what a bow saw is for here as well, Bill. Except I was using it for something other than tree trunks at the time. Something closer to my leg.
I’ve cut my leg with an X-acto knife, too, Mum.
“I spent some time in England and I saw a number of tree trunks I mean legs on English women that needed a chain saw to cut the branches I mean hair off. Why not a bow saw?”
Bill, again, I know you meant this to be funny, but I find it offensive that you would ever refer to a woman (or a man for that manner) in such a way. Or to refer to the hair on their legs in this manner. Although shaving of the legs is a North American tradition, I have never found hair on a woman’s leg to be offensive or anything to make fun of.
I can’t believe this thread is still going! Bill #174, check out my comment #1.
In England the men shave their armpits and the women do not shave theirs. In the south of England (do not know about all parts of England) many of the women have ankles that are rather large. They wrap them in a brown bandage that makes them resemble tree trunks.
Call the Fashion Police – Is that the E Channel?
I take it you are saying you have spent a large amount of time in England, have observed the men and women and so decide to judge them on their appearances in such a way.
What a way to desribe ANY woman, as having ankles, wrapped in bandages that make them look like “tree trunks”. Actually not shaving hair is a European trait, not an English one. Having lived in Ireland, and having had many English friends, I can’t think of one who didn’t shave their leg or arm pit hair.
Either way, I find it in poor taste to desribe anyone as having “hair like a branch” as you so describe it. And having English ancestry, I find it doubly offensive.
What I find to be unappealing is when people (men or women) wear copious amounts of perfume or cologne. But even so I don’t desribe them in such unattractive ways as you do.
Actually I fail to understand how ridiculing people can be called humour.
Have you ever watch the cartoon show called Wonder Pets? If so perhaps you can relate to this. When the baby animal calls for help the little duck Ming Ming sings “This is Serious”.
No, I haven’t.
Sounds like we need a good dose of “Be ye not easily offended.”
;-)
JM
I don’t get easily offended. I do however, take great exception to when people are ridiculed for their appearances or mannerisms, when they are being used as the butt of a joke. I think what we really need is a good dose of “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” rather than use “don’t get offended” as an excuse to run down other people, whether or not they are individuals or a group.
Well, I did put a winking smiley…
The golden rule would be nice, but I’ve found that the only reaction that I can really control is my own.
Our son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and although he is fun to be around, and a good natured, loving, caring, and playful kid, he sure acts strangely sometimes. He gets many strange looks and comments from the kids at school and church at times. We’ve found that usually when he is “ridiculed for (his) appearances or mannerisms” at times, it is usually due to a lack of education. We do what we can to educate, but that will be a lifelong pursuit. He’s pretty good natured about the whole thing, I think mostly because he sees our reaction and how we handle it. I think if we got offended at how others treated him, he would probably have a more negative reaction.
I know.
I am sorry, I take it very seriously when people, anyone, is ridiculed, especially in a “tongue in cheek” manner. it is due to lack of education. Which I think is why it is important to stand up to people when they treat them like that.
Don’t worry, I don’t go around taking offense at every little thing. Since Bill is an adult, I wanted to make it clear that I found his comments rude and offensive. Not that I was taking extreme offense, but that the content of them are objectionable. Just because people behave in such ways does not mean it should be allowed to pass without being shown for what it is.
However, just to let you know, when it comes to me and even my family (my children and my husband) although I defend them vociferously (if I don’t, who will?) I don’t take offense and react negatively if they are treated in such ways. I teach them (my children) to take the high road (Kim just doesn’t care when it comes to himself) but when it comes to people who cannot defend or stand up for themselves, I will jump in.
As a teenager who suffered from weight problems and the accompanying treatment that that brings, I am sensitive to how others are treated and I will say something when someone is ridiculed for appearance, behaviour, mannerisms, choices, etc. It doesn’t bother ME personally when it is myself. When it is OTHERS, I will stand up for them, because they can’t do it themselves. And since Bill puports to be a grown-up, I expect better from him. When it comes to children, that’s a whole other issue. They learn from their parents and hopefully they are still learning proper beahviour towards others.
What ever happened to the Bill thread for stuff like this?
ok, if it makes you happy….