Question about garments-Ladies only please

[TrueIntent]

I want to clarify....Most of what we teach is good...but it's very generic, and can be learned from most Christian mainstream churches . The temple ceremony and the clarity of the Book of Mormon is what separates mormons from the rest of the world. It is supposed to give one access to the Holy Priesthood. So greater levels of knowledge require a greater level of faith. Im experimental on this, but it's not because I don't believe...it's because I do. I study these things because it matters to me....Isaiah foretells of the "last days"...the body of his church comes forth. These things matter because we have a mission to do. The church is supposed to lead the church. I have to be honest...I hate when people say there are some things we are not meant to understand....this contradicts the entire mission of Joseph Smith...then why don't we ask. Doesnt God still answer?

[Cc07]

Why are you so bent on that current Prophets and Apostles are just men and therefore can confuse and not get it right on the things the Lord would have us do- but are constantly referring to past Prophets? They were just men as well..................................... The Church of Jesus Christ is either true or it's not. If it is true then everything about it is true- no short cuts, no maybe this part is right but this part isn't right. You either take it all or you don't. Yes- gain your own testimony of these things. I don't expect anyone to ever blindly follow and ride coat tails. I guess that is why this is something I don't back down from because I have asked for myself and I do know for myself and I'm passionate about it because I understand the truth. If we were to be told every little thing- that is what Satans plan was. It leaves us without finding out for ourselves and the idea of faith. Other religions teach about past biblical prophets too- but if you have a knowledge that this is the true church then you also have a knowledge that God is speaking to our current prophets and Apostles and therefore what they say is truth and what they ask of us is what God is asking of us. I don't know what more I can say about it. To me it's very black and white. It either is or it isn't and theirs not parts of it is true but parts of it aren't. I don't believe that God would give anyone revelation that is contrary to what the Prophets and Apostles are teaching. I wish you all the best!

[TrueIntent]

Why are you so bent on that current Prophets and Apostles are just men and therefore can confuse and not get it right on the things the Lord would have us do- but are constantly referring to past Prophets? They were just men as well..................................... The Church of Jesus Christ is either true or it's not. If it is true then everything about it is true- no short cuts, no maybe this part is right but this part isn't right. You either take it all or you don't. Yes- gain your own testimony of these things. I don't expect anyone to ever blindly follow and ride coat tails. I guess that is why this is something I don't back down from because I have asked for myself and I do know for myself and I'm passionate about it because I understand the truth. If we were to be told every little thing- that is what Satans plan was. It leaves us without finding out for ourselves and the idea of faith. Other religions teach about past biblical prophets too- but if you have a knowledge that this is the true church then you also have a knowledge that God is speaking to our current prophets and Apostles and therefore what they say is truth and what they ask of us is what God is asking of us. I don't know what more I can say about it. To me it's very black and white. It either is or it isn't and theirs not parts of it is true but parts of it aren't. I don't believe that God would give anyone revelation that is contrary to what the Prophets and Apostles are teaching. I wish you all the best!

The Church of Jesus Christ (His Church)....IS TRUE....Our church is run by men...like you said. You're the one contradicting yourself. He's working with mortals....they will err. this is my problem...your speaking out of both sides of your mouth and you don't realize it. Not everything we have taught is true...not everything the general authorities teach is true. It is revelation of which they interpret based on their own understanding...which is based on their understanding at the time....which is also based on where they are spiritually at the time.

Just because someone has a calling in the church, doesn't mean they are spiritually at the level the calling requires (hence the area seventy getting excommunicated...and also, other apostle who were excommunicated...look at Judas..Wheat and tares go all the way to the top in the scriptures...ALWAYS). They are men. It's all over early church history..men apostatizing or being reprimanded for Pride....but you believe what they says is truth and that they always speak for God. That is not true. But I do think the bulk of what the church teaches is good.

Jesus Christ speaks truth....they attempt based on their level of spirituality to interpret the teachings of Christ--and we as membership are supposed to listen, but not follow blindly--the membership used to vote on these issues collectedly before they were adopted....we are supposed to hold our leaders accountable...even in the book of mormon we are taught that the people direct the church and sometimes which is sometimes why they fell into wickedness, but we are also told not to elect kings. The temple ceremony was designed to teach all of us how to communicate with God directly. That's what moses was trying to teach the children of Israel. You should study the scriptures and see if the blanket statement you makes is true......

"if you have a knowledge that this is the true church then you also have a knowledge that God is speaking to our current prophets and Apostles and therefore what they say is truth and what they ask of us is what God is asking of us. . I don't believe that God would give anyone revelation that is contrary to what the Prophets and Apostles are teaching."


The is such an incorrect statement on so many levels...but alas...it is what I used to believe myself. Before my father died...he said to me "things are not as black and white as you think they are"....and he was right. Are you familiar with early church leaders teachings on blacks as descendants of cain, and the "polygamy saved men from the woes of prostitution"....george q. cannon taught that....he was an apostle....of course an individual can receive revelation that declares these teachings as false...otherwise we would not be free agents. We would be subject to men, and their incorrect understandings (how do you think Joseph got his...by going to God instead of preachers who claimed to have more spiritual knowledge). I think the biggest issues right now in the church are statements like you made above...because not everything the church teaches will exalt them...some of these teachings will hinder individuals...BECAUSE...we are supposed to be learning from the church how to receive revelation directly from the Lord himself...this is what the temple ceremony teaches.

Finally, I would like to add that the definition of a prophet in scripture, and the definition of a Prophet in the early church, is different than how we culturally define a prophet. Im not dissing these men....but I, like Adam in the temple video, refuse to believe everything I am taught....Adam receives tokens and signs after that (read what a token and sign is in scripture...I'll give you a hint...its not a handshake, the handshake is merely a symbol)...the church does contain the ordinances right now that reveal how revelation is to be received so one does not fall into midst of darkness. I know you don't understand what Im saying...the first step for you will be willing to accept that maybe what Im saying is true, and pray about it. But prayers only work if you SINCERELY desire to know if what I am saying is true....it must be done with real intent. I also wish you the best...it was a good little debate we had going here. Thanks for the conversation.

[Cc07]

Adam didn't refuse to be taught though from the Apostles- he knew they were messengers from God. And he specifically says to follow their council.
I guess the same goes for you- sincerely pray to know if what I'm saying is true....
I didn't say that the Prophets and Apostles were just men. I was referencing that you say they are just men and if that's the case all past Prophets and Apostles are just "men." Therefore, you always talking about past Prophets and Apostles and the way they did things in biblical times ect... is moot because you say the current prophet and Apostles are just men that confuse the doctrine of Christ so that could mean all prophets confuse the doctrine of Christ so you need to stop referencing the way they did things with past prophets because they would be just "men" too. Which I was saying their doctrine could be confused too. So you can't put them and their teachings on a higher pedastool.
I know they are men, but I believe them to be men called of God and who are the spokesmen for God. I want to be worth to enter the temple of God- and to do so I have to be worthy to answer the temple recommend question of if I wear my garments night and day like given to me in the instruction when I received them. It either is or it isn't..... for me it is.

[TrueIntent]

Adam didn't refuse to be taught though from the Apostles- he knew they were messengers from God. And he specifically says to follow their council.
I guess the same goes for you- sincerely pray to know if what I'm saying is true....
I didn't say that the Prophets and Apostles were just men. I was referencing that you say they are just men and if that's the case all past Prophets and Apostles are just "men." Therefore, you always talking about past Prophets and Apostles and the way they did things in biblical times ect... is moot because you say the current prophet and Apostles are just men that confuse the doctrine of Christ so that could mean all prophets confuse the doctrine of Christ so you need to stop referencing the way they did things with past prophets because they would be just "men" too. Which I was saying their doctrine could be confused too. So you can't put them and their teachings on a higher pedastool.
I know they are men, but I believe them to be men called of God and who are the spokesmen for God. I want to be worth to enter the temple of God- and to do so I have to be worthy to answer the temple recommend question of if I wear my garments night and day like given to me in the instruction when I received them. It either is or it isn't..... for me it is.

Yeah but there was a token and sign that was exchanged between them. just because someone claims they are an apostle doesnt mean they are...do you remember the old temple video where satan is whispering in the preachers ear....you have to "Try your messenger".....there is an exchange of tokens and signs (this is symbolic)....how do you know you aren't following Judas or and AntiChrist....judas was one of the twelve....Trust me...if this is the church the Lord has set up for the last days...what makes you think satan is lurking and infiltrating it. The moment you stop "trying and questioning the messengers" is the moment Satan enters in. Satans plan was blind obedience....Christ was to follow him...imperfectly, and use his grace for where we fail.


Remember...He was "looking for messengers"....and an apostle appeared...he wasn't looking for an apostle or someone who claimed to be...or even a preacher. Messengers that exchanged tokens with him...thats important

[Cc07]

Well I'm 100% sure that I'm following truth on this matter.

[TrueIntent]

Well I'm 100% sure that I'm following truth on this matter.

So WAS I. When I believED like you DO. Touche.

[tdj]

My issue with the garments is with the frustration that womens biology isn't really taken into account like the mens are. The mens garments has the opening i the front where men can more easily use the restroom and whatnot. Women's garments have no such allowances for their monthly cycles. There are plenty of menstrual underwear ideas out these days that could very easily and cheaply be incorporated into womens underwear. Like pockets to hold the pads, semi sewn re enforced gusset to fit pads with wings, or extra layers that are specifially designed to absorb mild leaks. The problem is, is that women have been taught for so long that we can't discuss these issues with men like adults, and so men and women get rather squemish at the thought of discussing these issues with each other. The leadership i the church are all men, and so unless this is brought to their attention, then not much will get done, I'm afraid. Wearing an extra pair of underwear isn't so bad in the winter, but in some of these states where the summers are blistereing, then expecting a sister to wear yet ANOTHER layer of clothing is ridiculous.

I'm a fairly new convert so please understand I'm just trying to learn here. Another question I have is if the garments are sacred, then why do they routinely and without any thought get exposed to such disgusting bodily fluids?

[Crackers]

My issue with the garments is with the frustration that womens biology isn't really taken into account like the mens are. The mens garments has the opening i the front where men can more easily use the restroom and whatnot. Women's garments have no such allowances for their monthly cycles. There are plenty of menstrual underwear ideas out these days that could very easily and cheaply be incorporated into womens underwear. Like pockets to hold the pads, semi sewn re enforced gusset to fit pads with wings, or extra layers that are specifially designed to absorb mild leaks. The problem is, is that women have been taught for so long that we can't discuss these issues with men like adults, and so men and women get rather squemish at the thought of discussing these issues with each other. The leadership i the church are all men, and so unless this is brought to their attention, then not much will get done, I'm afraid. Wearing an extra pair of underwear isn't so bad in the winter, but in some of these states where the summers are blistereing, then expecting a sister to wear yet ANOTHER layer of clothing is ridiculous.

I'm a fairly new convert so please understand I'm just trying to learn here. Another question I have is if the garments are sacred, then why do they routinely and without any thought get exposed to such disgusting bodily fluids?

You bring up some good ideas. I know for a while at least, the church was soliciting suggestions for garment design/materials, and they seem to be putting out new stuff as they see a need. I would email your list of ideas to store.lds.org. For me, I would love to find a material that I like (I prefer the drysilk) that I can also wear pantyhose with (without them sliding off). Oh the joy....

[tdj]

My issue with the garments is with the frustration that womens biology isn't really taken into account like the mens are. The mens garments has the opening i the front where men can more easily use the restroom and whatnot. Women's garments have no such allowances for their monthly cycles. There are plenty of menstrual underwear ideas out these days that could very easily and cheaply be incorporated into womens underwear. Like pockets to hold the pads, semi sewn re enforced gusset to fit pads with wings, or extra layers that are specifially designed to absorb mild leaks. The problem is, is that women have been taught for so long that we can't discuss these issues with men like adults, and so men and women get rather squemish at the thought of discussing these issues with each other. The leadership i the church are all men, and so unless this is brought to their attention, then not much will get done, I'm afraid. Wearing an extra pair of underwear isn't so bad in the winter, but in some of these states where the summers are blistereing, then expecting a sister to wear yet ANOTHER layer of clothing is ridiculous.

I'm a fairly new convert so please understand I'm just trying to learn here. Another question I have is if the garments are sacred, then why do they routinely and without any thought get exposed to such disgusting bodily fluids?

You bring up some good ideas. I know for a while at least, the church was soliciting suggestions for garment design/materials, and they seem to be putting out new stuff as they see a need. I would email your list of ideas to store.lds.org. For me, I would love to find a material that I like (I prefer the drysilk) that I can also wear pantyhose with (without them sliding off). Oh the joy....

It's not so much the material that needs to be changed to accomodate women, but the fact that there's no good way based on how the undergarment is built, to fit for menstrual issues. At least nothing like regular underwear. As fa as the material, yes the church has reached out asking for suggestions, but that's of little use when it comes to menstruation needs. I've discovered already that there are certain materials you want to wear for certain times of the year. That stretchy, form fitting material like what they make for yoga pants, is the absolute WORST you can wear in the summer, especially in my state where it's super humid. But this is the first winter I've worn the garments, and I have noticed I'm not as cold as I have been in the past. The summer was cooler then normal, so when summer comes back to being in the triple digits, then I'll find out if I can handle wearing so much clothing. If I can't bear it, then I think I may just have to not wear them during some of the hotter months. Fortunately, that is only in July and August. When we came back from our vacation in August, we had our air conditioning turned off, so it was hot and uncomfortable for pretty much that whole evening in our house. I TRIED to endure it, but I finally had to give in and take them off. It was just too unbearable wearing more then one layer of clothing like that.

[Lisasnyder]

If i needed to wear depends is it right to wear under my garments ,I have had a strggle with this,due to the fact of my epilepsy i tend to have a weaker bkadder. WHAT TO DO?

[tdj]

As everyone has said, you wear your garments next to your skin. By the way, they have garments specially for nursing mothers that should solve that problem.

I used those for the first few kids. It was very hard trying to be discreet in the Mother's Lounge since it took two hands to pull my self back together and make sure everything was in the right place. Although with the nursing pads I use now probably wouldn't be so difficult. Question, if the garment has to always be right up against the skin no matter what what do you do for that time of the month? Would that be the only instance where the garment being secondary would be allowed? I'm not trying to stir the pot just getting ideas, thoughts.

I've heard of the maternity tops and based on what I saw of them, they don't look like they would really do the trick. But I've never used them, so someone would have to ask those who HAVE used them.
Why is it necessary to be discreet in the mothers lounge? It's a place just for women to do that sort of stuff so it's expected that, well, things might need to come out.

[evejaa]

Sisters!!!!
You have made a mountain out of a mole hill!
Bra and underwear can NOW be woren under the garment or over, so long as marks don't show through your shirt.
When my daughter went through the temple in 2012 is was their instruction.
I had so many women doubt me, in 2017, I sat down with the temple matron and asked her...Oaker Mountain Temple...she answered you can wear either way..your choice.
End of thread

[sarasmile]

The symbols are stamped on now so less chance of showing through.

[AI2.0]

Sisters!!!!
You have made a mountain out of a mole hill!
Bra and underwear can NOW be woren under the garment or over, so long as marks don't show through your shirt.
When my daughter went through the temple in 2012 is was their instruction.
I had so many women doubt me, in 2017, I sat down with the temple matron and asked her...Oaker Mountain Temple...she answered you can wear either way..your choice.
End of thread

Pretty sad isn't it. I feel very sorry for some women who make their lives miserable with so much drama over their garments.

There is no requirement that garments be worn 'against the skin'. Where did this come from? Who's been pushing these fundamentalist zealot ideas?
Why do people continue with unreasonable beliefs which defy common sense? Garments are underwear, they serve that purpose. They need to be washed, they wear out, they need mending at times, they can touch the ground...they are underwear. What's important about garments is that they represent the covenants we make in the temple--the covenants are 'sacred', the garments are fabric and have a functional purpose as underwear. Regardless of their sacred nature, Garments are still underwear and function as underwear. Underwear are going to be exposed to all kinds of bodily fluids and functions--get used to it, because that's what it means to have a functioning physical body and underwear are designed to protect clothing from those bodily fluids and excretions.

If a woman needs to use hygiene products, they are designed to protect underwear from being soiled. That means they need to be used properly and they ought to be 'against the skin'--between the body and the garment. That's their purpose. You might as well not use them if you are not wearing them properly.

Garments are designed to help us be modest and it's common sense that we should not wear them in such a way that the marks are visible. If they are, then wear a camisole or something to keep them from showing through. You can wear your bra under or over the garment top--whichever is your personal preference. You can wear additional underwear under your garments to hold sanitary napkins or pads in place, if they aren't staying properly with just the garment.

If you need to wear depends or a pad, then wear them properly, the way they are designed to be worn-- against the body--what's the point of using them if you are trying to wear them on the outside of the garment? Seriously, there's no point to spend the money. Depends are designed to protect your clothing and undergarments, if you don't put them against your body, they can't do the job they were designed to do. Garments are undergarments--they are underwear. We, LDS are not fundamentalists or unreasonable zealots who want to make women's lives miserable. Wear these products properly as they are designed to protect our underwear(garments) and clothing.

They make nursing garment tops, which are easier to use with a nursing bra, but if you don't want to buy them, simply pull up your garment top or pull it down (if you are smaller breasted) and stop fretting. The purpose of the mother's lounge is to allow women privacy, where they can nurse in private and not worry that they might flash some breast. They shouldn't be fretting about being 'discreet' in the lounge, unless they are uncomfortable with other women seeing them. If they have that problem, then they can always throw a blanket over themselves for added privacy. But, frankly, why bother. As I said, that's the whole point of providing a mother's lounge. It is meant to be a convenience.

[tdj]

If a woman needs to use hygiene products, they are designed to protect underwear from being soiled. That means they need to be used properly and they ought to be 'against the skin'--between the body and the garment. That's their purpose. You might as well not use them if you are not wearing them properly.




I saw this comment on the above post and I just have to ask: Are you a man? I'm just wondering, because of what you said about wearing the pad with the garment. I don't see how it can be done. For one thing, the undergarments are built in a way to where it's impossible to wear pads with wings, and if you try to wear the pads without wings, then the garment is built to where a bloody disaster would bound to happen. So I do what other women do, and that is to wear a pair of regular underwear underneath. But that leaves the insanely hot days of summer where being expect to wear yet one more layer of clothing is a bit unreasonable. I guess if one isn't pre disposed to wearing blatantly immodest clothing, then they could forego wearing the bottoms one week out of the month during the hottest months.

What irritates me to no end is that the mens garments are made to accomodate their anatomy and needs as men, but the garment of the women has no such construct. If anyone needs to have their anatomy under consideration when it comes to the garments, it's the women.

[AI2.0]

If a woman needs to use hygiene products, they are designed to protect underwear from being soiled. That means they need to be used properly and they ought to be 'against the skin'--between the body and the garment. That's their purpose. You might as well not use them if you are not wearing them properly.




I saw this comment on the above post and I just have to ask: Are you a man? I'm just wondering, because of what you said about wearing the pad with the garment. I don't see how it can be done. For one thing, the undergarments are built in a way to where it's impossible to wear pads with wings, and if you try to wear the pads without wings, then the garment is built to where a bloody disaster would bound to happen. So I do what other women do, and that is to wear a pair of regular underwear underneath. But that leaves the insanely hot days of summer where being expect to wear yet one more layer of clothing is a bit unreasonable. I guess if one isn't pre disposed to wearing blatantly immodest clothing, then they could forego wearing the bottoms one week out of the month during the hottest months.

What irritates me to no end is that the mens garments are made to accomodate their anatomy and needs as men, but the garment of the women has no such construct. If anyone needs to have their anatomy under consideration when it comes to the garments, it's the women.

No, I'm not a man, I'm a woman who wears garments and also had periods (I'm menopausal now) while wearing garments for over 30 years. I used tampons and sometimes pads, when necessary. I did wear underwear under, at times, but also used them with the garments depending on the style and.

Look, having periods is a pain, regardless of garments. When it comes to bodily functions, men are always going to have an advantage--with every type of underwear and every situation. Men are EASY to accommodate, so garments accommodate them, but with women, it's different--women all have different needs and preferences--they are not easy to accommodate. Frankly, I'm amazed at how many different types and styles they are offering now. When I first started wearing garments they were the awful one piece with no crotch! So I try not to complain about minor problems.

Basically, the church serves a global population and tries to keep the price of garments down and making too many alterations raises the price. Also, trying to accommodate pads when in general women don't use them, that might just add bulk to the crotch that most would find annoying and unnecessary.

I made a commitment to wear the garment night and day and so, even if I wore underwear underneath, I still wore my garments, and if it was uncomfortable, I just put up with the temporary discomfort, because of that commitment. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable only wearing the garment top.

But, if you've got an idea for improving them, then send it to the garment dept. They will consider it. I have a friend who, about 20 years ago suggested for the little bit of lace on the edges, rather than the unhemmed rolled edges. They did listen and we now have lace on the edges.

My point in posting was to make sure women know they need to wear hygiene products against the body and garments over. If a person needs to use something to keep a pad in place, then they should do that and not be worried that the garment isn't 'against the skin', which is one of those fanaticisms which sometimes spread under the radar among members.

[tdj]

If a woman needs to use hygiene products, they are designed to protect underwear from being soiled. That means they need to be used properly and they ought to be 'against the skin'--between the body and the garment. That's their purpose. You might as well not use them if you are not wearing them properly.




I saw this comment on the above post and I just have to ask: Are you a man? I'm just wondering, because of what you said about wearing the pad with the garment. I don't see how it can be done. For one thing, the undergarments are built in a way to where it's impossible to wear pads with wings, and if you try to wear the pads without wings, then the garment is built to where a bloody disaster would bound to happen. So I do what other women do, and that is to wear a pair of regular underwear underneath. But that leaves the insanely hot days of summer where being expect to wear yet one more layer of clothing is a bit unreasonable. I guess if one isn't pre disposed to wearing blatantly immodest clothing, then they could forego wearing the bottoms one week out of the month during the hottest months.

What irritates me to no end is that the mens garments are made to accomodate their anatomy and needs as men, but the garment of the women has no such construct. If anyone needs to have their anatomy under consideration when it comes to the garments, it's the women.

No, I'm not a man, I'm a woman who wears garments and also had periods (I'm menopausal now) while wearing garments for over 30 years. I used tampons and sometimes pads, when necessary. I did wear underwear under, at times, but also used them with the garments depending on the style and.

Look, having periods is a pain, regardless of garments. When it comes to bodily functions, men are always going to have an advantage--with every type of underwear and every situation. Men are EASY to accommodate, so garments accommodate them, but with women, it's different--women all have different needs and preferences--they are not easy to accommodate. Frankly, I'm amazed at how many different types and styles they are offering now. When I first started wearing garments they were the awful one piece with no crotch! So I try not to complain about minor problems.

Basically, the church serves a global population and tries to keep the price of garments down and making too many alterations raises the price. Also, trying to accommodate pads when in general women don't use them, that might just add bulk to the crotch that most would find annoying and unnecessary.

I made a commitment to wear the garment night and day and so, even if I wore underwear underneath, I still wore my garments, and if it was uncomfortable, I just put up with the temporary discomfort, because of that commitment. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable only wearing the garment top.

But, if you've got an idea for improving them, then send it to the garment dept. They will consider it. I have a friend who, about 20 years ago suggested for the little bit of lace on the edges, rather than the unhemmed rolled edges. They did listen and we now have lace on the edges.

My point in posting was to make sure women know they need to wear hygiene products against the body and garments over. If a person needs to use something to keep a pad in place, then they should do that and not be worried that the garment isn't 'against the skin', which is one of those fanaticisms which sometimes spread under the radar among members.

I DO have an idea, and it shouldn't raise the cost by one cent. Simply don't sew the reinforced extra crotch part all the way around. That way, it would allow for a woman to put a pad with wings on, without having to wear an extra pair of underwear, which to be honest, is absolutely ridiculous to have to do. I have contacted the garments department, and they said they'd take it into consideration. I don't hold out much hope, though, because I suspect that somewhere up the chain, this will have to be approved by yet another MAN.

Yes, periods are a pain, even under the best of circumstances, so why is it even worse for us by expecting us to wear underwear that do not accomodate our needs in the least? It's not really any harder to accomodate for the general needs of women any more then it is for a man. What we need is a WOMAN who can ok the change, since men seem to get all squeemish over the subject, and ignore it, hoping it will just go away, and WE are the ones who have to make do or do without.

[tdj]

My iniital question on the garments from a few months back on here still stands: If the garments are considered sacred, then why do we subject them to all manner of disgusting body fluids? Fluids we'd be appalled at finding smeared all over our chapels, or temples?

[AI2.0]

If a woman needs to use hygiene products, they are designed to protect underwear from being soiled. That means they need to be used properly and they ought to be 'against the skin'--between the body and the garment. That's their purpose. You might as well not use them if you are not wearing them properly.




I saw this comment on the above post and I just have to ask: Are you a man? I'm just wondering, because of what you said about wearing the pad with the garment. I don't see how it can be done. For one thing, the undergarments are built in a way to where it's impossible to wear pads with wings, and if you try to wear the pads without wings, then the garment is built to where a bloody disaster would bound to happen. So I do what other women do, and that is to wear a pair of regular underwear underneath. But that leaves the insanely hot days of summer where being expect to wear yet one more layer of clothing is a bit unreasonable. I guess if one isn't pre disposed to wearing blatantly immodest clothing, then they could forego wearing the bottoms one week out of the month during the hottest months.

What irritates me to no end is that the mens garments are made to accomodate their anatomy and needs as men, but the garment of the women has no such construct. If anyone needs to have their anatomy under consideration when it comes to the garments, it's the women.

No, I'm not a man, I'm a woman who wears garments and also had periods (I'm menopausal now) while wearing garments for over 30 years. I used tampons and sometimes pads, when necessary. I did wear underwear under, at times, but also used them with the garments depending on the style and.

Look, having periods is a pain, regardless of garments. When it comes to bodily functions, men are always going to have an advantage--with every type of underwear and every situation. Men are EASY to accommodate, so garments accommodate them, but with women, it's different--women all have different needs and preferences--they are not easy to accommodate. Frankly, I'm amazed at how many different types and styles they are offering now. When I first started wearing garments they were the awful one piece with no crotch! So I try not to complain about minor problems.

Basically, the church serves a global population and tries to keep the price of garments down and making too many alterations raises the price. Also, trying to accommodate pads when in general women don't use them, that might just add bulk to the crotch that most would find annoying and unnecessary.

I made a commitment to wear the garment night and day and so, even if I wore underwear underneath, I still wore my garments, and if it was uncomfortable, I just put up with the temporary discomfort, because of that commitment. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable only wearing the garment top.

But, if you've got an idea for improving them, then send it to the garment dept. They will consider it. I have a friend who, about 20 years ago suggested for the little bit of lace on the edges, rather than the unhemmed rolled edges. They did listen and we now have lace on the edges.

My point in posting was to make sure women know they need to wear hygiene products against the body and garments over. If a person needs to use something to keep a pad in place, then they should do that and not be worried that the garment isn't 'against the skin', which is one of those fanaticisms which sometimes spread under the radar among members.

I DO have an idea, and it shouldn't raise the cost by one cent. Simply don't sew the reinforced extra crotch part all the way around. That way, it would allow for a woman to put a pad with wings on, without having to wear an extra pair of underwear, which to be honest, is absolutely ridiculous to have to do. I have contacted the garments department, and they said they'd take it into consideration. I don't hold out much hope, though, because I suspect that somewhere up the chain, this will have to be approved by yet another MAN.

Yes, periods are a pain, even under the best of circumstances, so why is it even worse for us by expecting us to wear underwear that do not accomodate our needs in the least? It's not really any harder to accomodate for the general needs of women any more then it is for a man. What we need is a WOMAN who can ok the change, since men seem to get all squeemish over the subject, and ignore it, hoping it will just go away, and WE are the ones who have to make do or do without.

Great, maybe they will offer that option for pad wearers. But, if it's really such a terrible frustration and bone of contention every month for you, then I'd suggest you just alter your own garments to suit your needs to use pads with wings. Do you know how to sew? If not, youtube is a great way to learn basic sewing and this wouldn't be hard at all. You aren't violating the spirit of the law--when they say 'don't alter the garment', they are talking about making them so you can wear more revealing clothing, this is about your own particular hygiene needs.

[AI2.0]

My iniital question on the garments from a few months back on here still stands: If the garments are considered sacred, then why do we subject them to all manner of disgusting body fluids? Fluids we'd be appalled at finding smeared all over our chapels, or temples?

Well, I answered it but maybe it you don't agree.

Those 'fluids' are what allows us to have babies--a power which our heavenly father gave us, which we should be honored to have--but it involves a real mess of blood, tissue etc--each month and when we bring a child into the world. We're still allowed in his chapels during this time, we aren't relegated to an isolated tent because we are considered 'unclean'--let's get rid of that archaic and demeaning mentality now that we live in the 21st century.

The garment is a SYMBOL and a daily/nightly reminder of the covenants we make in the temple. The covenants are sacred, the garment is a practical, functional way to keep these covenants in our minds at all times. But, Garments are still underwear, made of different types of cloth and thread, sewn in varying styles--garments are not 'sacred' (if they were, we shouldn't be wearing them at all--they should be kept in pristine condition under a glass case), but what they represent is sacred. Garments have a purpose which means they will get dirty, have bodily fluids etc. stain them. They are meant to be functional. We should treat them with care while we wear them, but when they get worn out, we can cut the symbols out and throw them away. We don't keep them under glass, protected-- because they have a function.

I'm having trouble understanding your thinking on this since you seem upset about having to wear a second pair of underwear under your garments (which would in essence protect them from bodily fluids you are upset about), when doing so should calm your concerns about garments being treated like the underwear they are. Do you believe garments should be worn as a third layer of clothing, between regular underwear and your outer clothing? If so, I think you are in the minority. I also think your discomfort with garments being, at times, subjected to 'disgusting body fluids' is forgetting that this is the purpose of underwear--it's to protect the outerclothing.

It seems clear the problem is that you believe the garment is 'sacred' in such a way as to preclude it's being functional whereas I believe the covenants Garments represent are sacred, but that the garment itself is still underwear and serves the purpose that we wear underwear for. We should treat them with care, no question-- but not be fanatical about them--otherwise, they lose their functionality.

[tdj]

If a woman needs to use hygiene products, they are designed to protect underwear from being soiled. That means they need to be used properly and they ought to be 'against the skin'--between the body and the garment. That's their purpose. You might as well not use them if you are not wearing them properly.




I saw this comment on the above post and I just have to ask: Are you a man? I'm just wondering, because of what you said about wearing the pad with the garment. I don't see how it can be done. For one thing, the undergarments are built in a way to where it's impossible to wear pads with wings, and if you try to wear the pads without wings, then the garment is built to where a bloody disaster would bound to happen. So I do what other women do, and that is to wear a pair of regular underwear underneath. But that leaves the insanely hot days of summer where being expect to wear yet one more layer of clothing is a bit unreasonable. I guess if one isn't pre disposed to wearing blatantly immodest clothing, then they could forego wearing the bottoms one week out of the month during the hottest months.

What irritates me to no end is that the mens garments are made to accomodate their anatomy and needs as men, but the garment of the women has no such construct. If anyone needs to have their anatomy under consideration when it comes to the garments, it's the women.

No, I'm not a man, I'm a woman who wears garments and also had periods (I'm menopausal now) while wearing garments for over 30 years. I used tampons and sometimes pads, when necessary. I did wear underwear under, at times, but also used them with the garments depending on the style and.

Look, having periods is a pain, regardless of garments. When it comes to bodily functions, men are always going to have an advantage--with every type of underwear and every situation. Men are EASY to accommodate, so garments accommodate them, but with women, it's different--women all have different needs and preferences--they are not easy to accommodate. Frankly, I'm amazed at how many different types and styles they are offering now. When I first started wearing garments they were the awful one piece with no crotch! So I try not to complain about minor problems.

Basically, the church serves a global population and tries to keep the price of garments down and making too many alterations raises the price. Also, trying to accommodate pads when in general women don't use them, that might just add bulk to the crotch that most would find annoying and unnecessary.

I made a commitment to wear the garment night and day and so, even if I wore underwear underneath, I still wore my garments, and if it was uncomfortable, I just put up with the temporary discomfort, because of that commitment. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable only wearing the garment top.

But, if you've got an idea for improving them, then send it to the garment dept. They will consider it. I have a friend who, about 20 years ago suggested for the little bit of lace on the edges, rather than the unhemmed rolled edges. They did listen and we now have lace on the edges.

My point in posting was to make sure women know they need to wear hygiene products against the body and garments over. If a person needs to use something to keep a pad in place, then they should do that and not be worried that the garment isn't 'against the skin', which is one of those fanaticisms which sometimes spread under the radar among members.

I DO have an idea, and it shouldn't raise the cost by one cent. Simply don't sew the reinforced extra crotch part all the way around. That way, it would allow for a woman to put a pad with wings on, without having to wear an extra pair of underwear, which to be honest, is absolutely ridiculous to have to do. I have contacted the garments department, and they said they'd take it into consideration. I don't hold out much hope, though, because I suspect that somewhere up the chain, this will have to be approved by yet another MAN.

Yes, periods are a pain, even under the best of circumstances, so why is it even worse for us by expecting us to wear underwear that do not accomodate our needs in the least? It's not really any harder to accomodate for the general needs of women any more then it is for a man. What we need is a WOMAN who can ok the change, since men seem to get all squeemish over the subject, and ignore it, hoping it will just go away, and WE are the ones who have to make do or do without.

Great, maybe they will offer that option for pad wearers. But, if it's really such a terrible frustration and bone of contention every month for you, then I'd suggest you just alter your own garments to suit your needs to use pads with wings. Do you know how to sew? If not, youtube is a great way to learn basic sewing and this wouldn't be hard at all. You aren't violating the spirit of the law--when they say 'don't alter the garment', they are talking about making them so you can wear more revealing clothing, this is about your own particular hygiene needs.

The question wasn't so much focused on me and my "contentions", but it was a bigger picture type question, and I thought a very valid one. But your ability to deflect is quite admirable. Hats off to you.

My whole point behind them being accomodating to feminine hygiene needs is the fact that we shouldn't HAVE to alter them or sew them to fit our issues. The fact that the church has had garments for this long with no adjustments made in that area is frankly very telling. If you are going to put a requirement on someone to wear a certain set of clothes for whatever reason, and basically inform them they are in the wrong if they DON'T wear them, charge them money to buy it, AND have it arranged to where they can only buy them from you, then you are the one who is ethically responsible for making sure they are tailored for that person. In this case, for that gender. You can not in good conscious, put those requirements on someone, and then just hand them something they are required to adjust for themselves.


Women are valuable. You're equal to your husbands, and you are precious beyond belief, but no we're not going to turn that into action by doing a simple, and inexpensive accomodation to your garments to hold a pad. Do that your own darn self.

[AI2.0]

No, I'm not a man, I'm a woman who wears garments and also had periods (I'm menopausal now) while wearing garments for over 30 years. I used tampons and sometimes pads, when necessary. I did wear underwear under, at times, but also used them with the garments depending on the style and.

Look, having periods is a pain, regardless of garments. When it comes to bodily functions, men are always going to have an advantage--with every type of underwear and every situation. Men are EASY to accommodate, so garments accommodate them, but with women, it's different--women all have different needs and preferences--they are not easy to accommodate. Frankly, I'm amazed at how many different types and styles they are offering now. When I first started wearing garments they were the awful one piece with no crotch! So I try not to complain about minor problems.

Basically, the church serves a global population and tries to keep the price of garments down and making too many alterations raises the price. Also, trying to accommodate pads when in general women don't use them, that might just add bulk to the crotch that most would find annoying and unnecessary.

I made a commitment to wear the garment night and day and so, even if I wore underwear underneath, I still wore my garments, and if it was uncomfortable, I just put up with the temporary discomfort, because of that commitment. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable only wearing the garment top.

But, if you've got an idea for improving them, then send it to the garment dept. They will consider it. I have a friend who, about 20 years ago suggested for the little bit of lace on the edges, rather than the unhemmed rolled edges. They did listen and we now have lace on the edges.

My point in posting was to make sure women know they need to wear hygiene products against the body and garments over. If a person needs to use something to keep a pad in place, then they should do that and not be worried that the garment isn't 'against the skin', which is one of those fanaticisms which sometimes spread under the radar among members.

I DO have an idea, and it shouldn't raise the cost by one cent. Simply don't sew the reinforced extra crotch part all the way around. That way, it would allow for a woman to put a pad with wings on, without having to wear an extra pair of underwear, which to be honest, is absolutely ridiculous to have to do. I have contacted the garments department, and they said they'd take it into consideration. I don't hold out much hope, though, because I suspect that somewhere up the chain, this will have to be approved by yet another MAN.

Yes, periods are a pain, even under the best of circumstances, so why is it even worse for us by expecting us to wear underwear that do not accomodate our needs in the least? It's not really any harder to accomodate for the general needs of women any more then it is for a man. What we need is a WOMAN who can ok the change, since men seem to get all squeemish over the subject, and ignore it, hoping it will just go away, and WE are the ones who have to make do or do without.

Great, maybe they will offer that option for pad wearers. But, if it's really such a terrible frustration and bone of contention every month for you, then I'd suggest you just alter your own garments to suit your needs to use pads with wings. Do you know how to sew? If not, youtube is a great way to learn basic sewing and this wouldn't be hard at all. You aren't violating the spirit of the law--when they say 'don't alter the garment', they are talking about making them so you can wear more revealing clothing, this is about your own particular hygiene needs.

The question wasn't so much focused on me and my "contentions", but it was a bigger picture type question, and I thought a very valid one. But your ability to deflect is quite admirable. Hats off to you.

My whole point behind them being accomodating to feminine hygiene needs is the fact that we shouldn't HAVE to alter them or sew them to fit our issues. The fact that the church has had garments for this long with no adjustments made in that area is frankly very telling. ong if they DON'T wear them, charge them money to buy it, AND have it arranged to where they can only buy them from you, then you are the one who is ethically responsible for making sure they are tailored for that person. In this case, for that gender. You can not in good conscious, put those requirements on someone, and then just hand them something they are required to adjust for themselves.
If you are going to put a requirement on someone to wear a certain set of clothes for whatever reason, and basically inform them they are in the wr

Women are valuable. You're equal to your husbands, and you are precious beyond belief, but no we're not going to turn that into action by doing a simple, and inexpensive accomodation to your garments to hold a pad. Do that your own darn self.

I think the jist is you are under the impression that all women are like you and so, they are all having problems with garments as you are. I think that's an incorrect assumption. A lot of us are just fine with the way garments are made and recognize that with the many changes they are trying to accommodate general needs. But, many women don't use pads and many who do use pads, don't find it the hassle and problem you are having or they are willing to try to fix the problem themselves. I also think you're being too hard on the makers of garments accusing them of ignoring needs or thinking it's somehow a reflection of how women are viewed in the church. Send in your ideas to them, if you don't want to make alterations yourself. I'm sure they appreciate suggestions and maybe you'll find that they actually do care.

I'm sorry, It's clear this isn't what you wanted. You comments reflect a resentment about having to wear and pay for garments, I'm sorry you feel this way. I know a lot of people who stop wearing them, and truthfully you do have that choice, it is voluntary on your part. I tried to offer suggestions and solutions, but it seems that from your responses, you were hoping for validation of your criticisms and commiseration. Well, maybe someone else will come on the thread. No hard feelings, I hope. Good luck.

[Crackers]

My whole point behind them being accomodating to feminine hygiene needs is the fact that we shouldn't HAVE to alter them or sew them to fit our issues. The fact that the church has had garments for this long with no adjustments made in that area is frankly very telling. If you are going to put a requirement on someone to wear a certain set of clothes for whatever reason, and basically inform them they are in the wrong if they DON'T wear them, charge them money to buy it, AND have it arranged to where they can only buy them from you, then you are the one who is ethically responsible for making sure they are tailored for that person. In this case, for that gender. You can not in good conscious, put those requirements on someone, and then just hand them something they are required to adjust for themselves.


Women are valuable. You're equal to your husbands, and you are precious beyond belief, but no we're not going to turn that into action by doing a simple, and inexpensive accomodation to your garments to hold a pad. Do that your own darn self.

I think it has been mentioned here already that you can make suggestions for garment changes/improvements, and the church has made many changes already to accommodate women's needs. I believe they will even custom make them for you. I think you have a good idea and should follow up on it. The addition of "wings" to pads is only a couple of decades old (maybe?), and the church might be slow to first recognize that an accommodation for such might be good, and then to come up with potential ideas and then to actually act on it.

I also think you could flip your persepective on the wearing of garments to view it as a voluntary choice, a privilege, a reminder of covenants and a protection as opposed to an expensive and punitive requirement. I agree wholeheartedly that women and men are equally valuable, and I believe this to be the church's position as well. But you can't judge the church's position on this based on how the church organization is able to accommate every woman's needs as to her garments. I'd suggest cutting them a little slack on it and following up on your good idea.

[Lenaya_leigh]

I wear my normal underwear underneath. Can't imagine it being very comfortable over the top. And the bottoms are uncomfortable without normal underwear under them.