Question about garments

[LDSGator]

13 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

That raises the prospect of signature forgery. 

I know I’ve asked you before, but if you want garments I’m sure someone here can get them to you. Just letting you know if you change your mind. 

[Carborendum]

On 7/24/2023 at 4:58 PM, Ironhold said:

Suffice to say that if you could view my X-rays you'd understand why I'm no longer keen on three-hour road trips in each direction. 

Ironhold,

If that is all that is keeping you from wearing your garments, I will order them to my house in your size and I will drive to your home to give them to you.

I'm not joking. 

I also believe Pam lives closer to you than I do.  But I'm not about to volunteer her delivery services--what with her age and all .

Edited August 17, 2023 by Carborendum

[Erick]

You don’t often hear this from a guy’s perspective, but here goes. About a year ago, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer and had to undergo surgery, which left me with scar tissue. I've worn garments since I was endowed more than 20 years ago, but now they’ve become excruciatingly uncomfortable.

I found a solution—or maybe a compromise. There’s a company called AsWeMove that makes seamless boxers for men. I now wear these under my garments as a buffer, and the difference has been life-changing.

Sorry if this is TMI, but I just wanted to share a man’s perspective.

[NeuroTypical]

Several years ago, I remember some updated guidance coming out from the brethren on garment use.  Clarifying that they could be worn over or under clothing, just the outermost layer needed to completely cover them.   

[mordorbund]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Several years ago, I remember some updated guidance coming out from the brethren on garment use.  Clarifying that they could be worn over or under clothing, just the outermost layer needed to completely cover them.   

From the Handbook of Instruction:

Quote

The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment.

 

[Carborendum]

35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Several years ago, I remember some updated guidance coming out from the brethren on garment use.  Clarifying that they could be worn over or under clothing, just the outermost layer needed to completely cover them.   

I had asked the question shortly after I received my endowment.  I was an athlete and wore a support.  The bishop said that he figured it didn't matter.

Based on @mordorbund's post, he was apparently correct.

[NeuroTypical]

20 years ago I was hearing people being judgey about women wearing bras under their garments (either for comfort, or because their hubbies asked them to for increased happy funtimes or something).   There was a tad of happiness and vindication and apologetic spouses over the update/clarification.

But yeah, 30 years ago I was hearing about how garments were not just a spiritual protection but also a physical one.  More than one "faith promoting legend" about folks getting in a car wreck and emerging with only damage to areas not covered by garments, etc.  That stuff didn't really survive the creation of the internet.

Edited March 5 by NeuroTypical

[MrShorty]

@Erick At the risk of urther TMI, after my own bout with a different cancer, I do the same thing -- regular underwear underneath garments. Like @NeuroTypical, I recall days when there was believed to be much more rigidity around how garments were intended to work with other undergarments. It's often difficult to know which directives were top down and which were bottom up. I'm just glad that we have reached a point as a people where we don't worry so much about how people choose to wear their underclothing.

[Carborendum]

33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

But yeah, 30 years ago I was hearing about how garments were not just a spiritual protection but also a physical one.  More than one "faith promoting legend" about folks getting in a car wreck and emerging with only damage to areas not covered by garments, etc.  That stuff didn't really survive the creation of the internet.

But I heard from my brother's neighbor's sister's friend that she watched an interview on TV about a movie citing a real-life event where someone who heard about "that magic underwear" who found herself in a fire and prayed that her Victoria's Secrets essentials would protect her.

Edited March 5 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

20 years ago I was hearing people being judgey about women wearing bras under their garments (either for comfort, or because their hubbies asked them to for increased happy funtimes or something).   There was a tad of happiness and vindication and apologetic spouses over the update/clarification.

But yeah, 30 years ago I was hearing about how garments were not just a spiritual protection but also a physical one.  More than one "faith promoting legend" about folks getting in a car wreck and emerging with only damage to areas not covered by garments, etc.  That stuff didn't really survive the creation of the internet.

I actually have a story of protection, but of one of my relatives rather than of myself.

My Future Son-in-Law was serving a mission many years ago.  At one point they were going downhill on bicycles on a gravel road.  They were racing and as young men do, were not being the most careful.  He passed several cars going downhill and so was going at a relatively good clip.  As he took a sharp corner, the bike finally had enough and it couldn't keep it's stabilization on the gravel.  He hit the ground extremely hard, and then the rest of his body followed.  He injured and arm and a leg quite severely and still has the scars from it as well to this day.  However, interestingly enough, he didn't fall on his arms or legs first, he fell on his shoulder.  His shirt was torn entirely at that point, but he was uninjured at any spot where his garments were, and they were not destroyed or torn. 

He credits that the protection of the Lord was there to help him due to his faithful keeping of the covenant to wear the garment, and wherever the garment was, he was uninjured (which, unfortunately did not extend to his arms and legs).