Garments


Grunt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please respond respectively. This is not an opinion. I'm asking why the garments for sister's are made so low in the back. My wife's back shows with a fitting dress about 4-5 inches below the back and front of the neck still covering the garment yet I can't even wear a V-neck shirt which is a the same or higher. I'm starting to see responses that don't answer what I'm asking. There's a double standard when it comes to the design of the garment. I'm just asking out of curiosity why this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nighttiger said:

There's a double standard when it comes to the design of the garment. 

Disagree.  I mean, I know you think you're right, and therefore I'm wrong, but no really, this is a matter of opinion.  "Men have modest garments and women have immodest garments" is what you believe is true, not what is objectively true. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always get crew-neck garments, but I thought the men’s nylon-mesh garments were basically a scoop neck front and back?

At any rate:  the notion that the garment exists to promote modesty is a sort of latter-day midrash (although, granted, one with some patina of prophetic authority).  That is not the garment’s raison d’être as given within the temple ceremony itself.  

It maybe worth noting that the garment as originally revealed extended to the wrist, ankles, and neck for both sexes.  The fact that the design has changed at all suggests that “modesty”, if indeed it is part of the impetus for the garment, is somewhat subjective.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nighttiger said:

I am posing a question to anyone involved in the development of the LDS garment. Why is the women's garment cut so low that a third of a sister's back is revealed? This seems contrary to the modesty we are taught in the doctrine. Secondly, if so accepted among the female garment then why is the men's not made with the same neckline? Many times I cannot where pullover V-necks because the garment shows when these are much higher than what the accepted women's garment neckline is. This doubled standard in the sister's garment vs. the brethren's has really perplexed me. Does anyone else see the double standard here? Where the sister's are instructed in modesty dress the Church allows them to where more skin revealing necklines than the brethren.

I agree with you entirely. I’ve been ranting about this for years. Not only is it the neckline but also the sleeves. Women’s garments have almost no sleeve. They are practically tank tops compared to the sleeves in men’s garments. I have a hard time wearing a short sleeve shirt without my garment sleeve hanging out. 

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nighttiger said:

Why is the women's garment cut so low that a third of a sister's back is revealed? This seems contrary to the modesty we are taught in the doctrine.

I hear you, brother. That gets me all hot and bothered, too. If only those women knew what animal instincts are awakened deep in the hearts of men when we are exposed to female flesh in the form of women's upper backs! It's a burden we men must bear, but our sisters should take pity on us and not flaunt their seductive shoulders and napes in our faces like that. Garment designers could help, but I fear they are all in the employ of Santa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think for a moment the Lord God has revealed through the prophets the exact design and measurements of the holy garment. I think God let's man figure it out on his own and the Lord accepts it through his tender mercies for the sake of saving souls. I think a lot of these details are like this, follow this pattern. We must remember that God's ways are not man's ways. But, through the tender mercies of the Lord, he works with us for the purpose of slowly changing our hearts and ways into becoming as he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been many more changes in women’s garments than in men’s. My theory is that women complain more than men. If more men would fill out surveys giving their input on garments then maybe more would be done to improve the fit and comfort of men’s garments. 

One change that is coming is that they will be making men’s tops with a V neck. Imagine that! How innovative!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

It maybe worth noting that the garment as originally revealed extended to the wrist, ankles, and neck for both sexes.  The fact that the design has changed at all suggests that “modesty”, if indeed it is part of the impetus for the garment, is somewhat subjective.

Yes, modesty is cultural and changes with time. It’s not a fixed thing. Here’s an example from a statement from Joseph F. Smith. Remember that he died in 1918.

“Immodesty in dress should be frowned down by parents and all decent people. The shameless exhibitions of the human form purposely presented in modern styles of dress, or rather undress, are indications of that sensuous and debasing tendency toward moral laxity and social corruption which have hurried nations into irretrievable ruin. Let not the brilliant prospects of a glorious millennium be clouded with such shadows as are threatened by customs and costumes and diversions of these licentious days.

In my sight the present-day fashions are abominable, suggestive of evil, calculated to arouse base passion and lust, and to engender lasciviousness, in the hearts of those who follow the fashions, and of those who tolerate them. … It is infamous, and I hope the daughters of Zion will not descend to these pernicious ways, customs and fashions, for they are demoralizing and damnable in their effect.

We hear it reported, from time to time, that some … mutilate their garments, rather than to keep them holy and undefiled. … We see some of our good sisters coming here to the temple occasionally decorated in the latest and most ridiculous fashions that ever disgraced the human form divine. They do not seem to realize that they are coming to the house of God.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vort said:

I hear you, brother. That gets me all hot and bothered, too. If only those women knew what animal instincts are awakened deep in the hearts of men when we are exposed to female flesh in the form of women's upper backs! It's a burden we men must bear, but our sisters should take pity on us and not flaunt their seductive shoulders and napes in our faces like that. Garment designers could help, but I fear they are all in the employ of Santa.

Santa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nighttiger said:

Please respond respectively. This is not an opinion. I'm asking why the garments for sister's are made so low in the back. My wife's back shows with a fitting dress about 4-5 inches below the back and front of the neck still covering the garment yet I can't even wear a V-neck shirt which is a the same or higher. I'm starting to see responses that don't answer what I'm asking. There's a double standard when it comes to the design of the garment. I'm just asking out of curiosity why this is.

From strength of youth

"Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back."

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Disagree.  I mean, I know you think you're right, and therefore I'm wrong, but no really, this is a matter of opinion.  "Men have modest garments and women have immodest garments" is what you believe is true, not what is objectively true. 

 

I would say that neither one is modest. I mean who would say that anyone is modest dressed only in their underwear. Besides that the corban cloth that I wear is quite sheer as well. It really hides very little. 

I will also say that the men’s garment when fully covered does lot allow a man to wear immodest clothing. However, a woman’s can wear clothing that many would consider immodest without the garment showing. So yes, the woman’s garment allows for a degree of immodesty that the men’s garment does not allow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your understanding of modesty is limited to needing certain number of square inches of material to cover certain number of body parts... then your understanding of modesty is juvenile and immature.  Now we all have to start somewhere and that understanding is a decent start to modesty.  But if we lock that down as the end all and be all of what modesty is we have retarded our ability to progress in light and knowledge on the subject.   If in addition we start publicly berating the church  for not following our limited understanding we have compounded our ignorance, and retardation with pride and arrogance.  Repentance is needed stat.

Now lets tackle why the square inches of material covering certain body parts fails.  First we generally consider running around in public in just your underwear to be immodest.  This is true even if your underwear is a wrist to ankles one piece.  It was true back when that was fashionable underwear it is true now that it is not.  It would still be true if we considered a burka and face veil to be underwear... (which we do not).   That is one extreme...  Here is the others...  I can be perfectly modest without a stitch of clothes on.  I am not immodest just because I am taking a shower or a bath.  Nor am I generally considered immodest because I am changing my clothes in a bathroom or locker area.

From those extremes we can see that modestly can not be strictly defined by what you wear.  If it is we all (hopefully) fail to be modest on a regular basis.

Now you might point out the my examples are not fair.  There is after all a difference to what one might do in private and what one should do in public...  And that is exactly my point.  Circumstances can change what is modest and what is not.  For example  generally speaking if I am walking around town without a shirt on  I'd consider myself being immodest  (and no one wants to see that).  But if at a public pool swimming, I can feel perfectly modest in a pair of baggy swim trunks.  Circumstances matter, not just square inches of fabric.

So lets go to the subject of garments.  Garments are underwear, and therefore have all the modestly of underwear in general.  Garments generally have more square inches of material then most common underwear today but that does not make them innately modest because they are still underwear.  We are instructed to keep our garment covered for various reasons.  On the subject of modesty covering the garment is a good start.  But it is not the final word on the subject, it can not be.

The garment can't be the final word because the Lord looks on the heart.  Those who want to put up Pharisaical rules and laws will find themselves missing the heart of the matter. 

If you try it make the garment the standard rather then a first step, then you get people pushing the limit of standard as hard as they can (we all know people who have done this), and that is not what Christ wants.  Rather then trying to make the 'law' more restrictive (by resizing the garment) we should be helping people more fully understand what modesty really means. (And it is not the sum total of the number of square inches of fabric we are wearing)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The garment can't be the final word because the Lord looks on the heart.  Those who want to put up Pharisaical rules and laws will find themselves missing the heart of the matter. 

If you try it make the garment the standard rather then a first step, then you get people pushing the limit of standard as hard as they can (we all know people who have done this), and that is not what Christ wants.  Rather then trying to make the 'law' more restrictive (by resizing the garment) we should be helping people more fully understand what modesty really means. (And it is not the sum total of the number of square inches of fabric we are wearing)

Prettymuch this.  I get annoyed when I see people discussing the garment like they're trying to figure out how to defeat the purpose of it without technically violating it in a way they'd have to answer for in a Temple Recommend interview.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mod·es·ty

Dictionary result for modesty

/ˈmädəstē/
noun
  1. the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities.
    "with typical modesty he insisted on sharing the credit with others"
    synonyms: self-effacementhumility, lack of vanity, lack of pretension, unpretentiousness; More
     
    • the quality of being relatively moderate, limited, or small in amount, rate, or level.
      "the modesty of his political aspirations"
      synonyms: limited scope, moderationfairnessacceptabilitysmallness
      "Gandhi's political tactics obscured the modesty of his political aspirations"
    • behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency.
      plural noun: modesties
      "modesty forbade her to undress in front of so many people"
      synonyms: unpretentiousness, simplicity, plainness, lack of pretension, inexpensiveness, lack of extravagance
      "it is appropriate to contrast the modesty of his home with those of more affluent politicians"
 
Following the definition of modesty one could easily suggest that wearing a suit and tie can be immodest in many cases because it can be pretentious. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing about this thread is that just the other night I dreamed I was in the cafeteria of the Mount Timpanogos Temple, and suddenly realized I had no pants on.  Garments, yes, but no pants.  And I sure didn’t feel very modest!

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The interesting thing about this thread is that just the other night I dreamed I was in the cafeteria of the Mount Timpanogos Temple, and suddenly realized I had no pants on.  Garments, yes, but no pants.  And I sure didn’t feel very modest!

It has been my experience that any church related dream does not go well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2019 at 9:52 AM, Nighttiger said:

I am posing a question to anyone involved in the development of the LDS garment. Why is the women's garment cut so low that a third of a sister's back is revealed? This seems contrary to the modesty we are taught in the doctrine. Secondly, if so accepted among the female garment then why is the men's not made with the same neckline? Many times I cannot where pullover V-necks because the garment shows when these are much higher than what the accepted women's garment neckline is. This doubled standard in the sister's garment vs. the brethren's has really perplexed me. Does anyone else see the double standard here? Where the sister's are instructed in modesty dress the Church allows them to where more skin revealing necklines than the brethren.

 

On 2/24/2019 at 12:01 PM, BJ64 said:

I agree with you entirely. I’ve been ranting about this for years. Not only is it the neckline but also the sleeves. Women’s garments have almost no sleeve. They are practically tank tops compared to the sleeves in men’s garments. I have a hard time wearing a short sleeve shirt without my garment sleeve hanging out. 

 

I've solved this dilemma by ordering myself women's tops to go with men's bottoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

 

 

I've solved this dilemma by ordering myself women's tops to go with men's bottoms.

That solution would not work for me. My chest is much too flat to fill the “cups” of a woman’s top. 

I solved the sleeve problem by undersizing my top so they are shorter in the sleeve and length. A tall corban top won’t stay tucked in and therefore hangs out about two inches past my t shirt. Buying them shorter makes it so that when they are untucked they do not hang out because they are shorter than my shirt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

That solution would not work for me. My chest is much too flat to fill the “cups” of a woman’s top. 

A shame really. One of the purposes of apostolic leadership is that "we all come ... unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ". Maybe try harder to measure up to fulness. As Dash would observe, it's all part of being (well) endowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

A shame really. One of the purposes of apostolic leadership is that "we all come ... unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ". Maybe try harder to measure up to fullness. As Dash would observe, it's all part of being (well) endowed.

Oh my gosh...I had totally forgotten about Dash.  That brings back memories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if someone asked already but I didn't read the whole thread and I have never had an endowment but I was reading about the ceremony and garments. Can someone who has been endowed ever be told not to wear their garments the same way you can be told not to take the sacrament? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share