LDS Garments: Why I Want Out of This Club

[Jacob]

Please join me in my campaign. Every time I go to the distribution center, I leave a comment card. I am told that the garment design team (some guy who occasionally convinces the brethren to make very minor changes, or new materials) is responsive to suggestions.

My comment usually relates to the poor quality of the material and my design complaints i.e. the sledves are too wide, there should be a fitted, or athletic fit top, there should be a sleeveless or tank top option.
I don't have much hope for those changes.

If you see what was going on at the time the big changes were made i.e. in the 1920's to get the short-sleeves and knee-length design, you will find that many, many people, especially women, were altering their garments. Some of the brethren were very upset about this. You can find statements in the church magazines discouraging people from doing this. Statements as to the divine design from JS. Really strong statements.
But in the end, the changes were made, partly because they figured out the design was not a matter of revealed truth and partly because the people were doing the modifications anyway.
So let's take the example from our pioneer ancestors and demand change.

Also, my FIL gave me a couple of military g tops. These have the symbols on the inside, so it can be worn as a t shirt. I don't often wear it like that, but I like having the desert tan colored option. He wears it alone to go running. Good idea, I think.

[Donuthole]

I honestly don't understand why they don't have someone with significant fashion experience designing the garments. Someone who understands the many varying shapes and sizes of the human body, and can tailor some fits to accommodate more than just one body type (if the garments are even tailored after a body type--I have my doubts). Also, someone who is up to date on styles and fashion enough to incorporate some of that (within reason) into the garment design process.

[Mrs. Funk]

Please join me in my campaign. Every time I go to the distribution center, I leave a comment card. I am told that the garment design team (some guy who occasionally convinces the brethren to make very minor changes, or new materials) is responsive to suggestions.

My comment usually relates to the poor quality of the material and my design complaints i.e. the sledves are too wide, there should be a fitted, or athletic fit top, there should be a sleeveless or tank top option.
I don't have much hope for those changes.

If you see what was going on at the time the big changes were made i.e. in the 1920's to get the short-sleeves and knee-length design, you will find that many, many people, especially women, were altering their garments. Some of the brethren were very upset about this. You can find statements in the church magazines discouraging people from doing this. Statements as to the divine design from JS. Really strong statements.
But in the end, the changes were made, partly because they figured out the design was not a matter of revealed truth and partly because the people were doing the modifications anyway.
So let's take the example from our pioneer ancestors and demand change.

Also, my FIL gave me a couple of military g tops. These have the symbols on the inside, so it can be worn as a t shirt. I don't often wear it like that, but I like having the desert tan colored option. He wears it alone to go running. Good idea, I think.

I've heard people say that the poor quality is attributable to trying to keep costs down (for members, ostensibly). I understand trying to make them affordable for members everywhere, but Spandex has been around since 1959 and has only very recently been incorporated to any of the garment designs. It's hard for me to not think the church pulled a Microsoft on the garment market and decided to make it a source of revenue by only allowing members to wear AUTHORIZED garments. The garments aren't well-constructed, but we the consumers can't motivate the producers to innovate very quickly since garment construction is tightly regulated by GOD, right?

Under Armor is expensive. I get it. But I'm sure many men would love a close-fitting stretchy boxer-brief style garment. You don't need Under Armor technology to do that. The newest Carinessa iteration for women is closer to that, though it still has problems like a gut-busting uncovered Spandex band that digs and causes rolls where no rolls exist. I have yet to understand the evil of putting Spandex in the tops to make them like an actual undershirt. As is, even the "tall" tops roll up and the serged edge make weirdo lines under my shirts. I've considered trying to wear men's garments, except there's no way they would fit me and the sleeves in the shirts would likely go down to my forearm.

I also don't understand the raised sew-in symbols on the garment. Even a simple stitched line would be better than the 3-D effect caused by the stitching (particularly problematic for women who go "bra-under" or braless). Obviously, LDS Distributions is capable of silk-screening garments as evidenced by military garments. I would gladly pay more to have them silk-screened on the inside.

Which further leads to the conclusion that fashioning my own garments is the only way to get around these problems. I feel guilty about making my own, as if in some way they aren't "sacred" if I don't buy them in a pink cellophane package. Bah.

[Jacob]

I honestly don't understand why they don't have someone with significant fashion experience designing the garments. Someone who understands the many varying shapes and sizes of the human body, and can tailor some fits of garments to accomodate more than just one body type (if the garments are even tailored after a body type--I have my doubts). Also, someone who is up to date on styles and fashion enough to incorporate some of that (within reason) into the garment design process.

The last major revision of the design was in the 60s or 70s, and they actually did have a professional do it. It was some famous, mormon, swimsuit designer. The improvement was great compared to the earlier one pieces. But any design has to be approved by a bunch of octogenarian men who remember dealing with much worse designs in the past.

If I could change anything, it'd be the women's garments. I hate them much worse than my wife does.

[Shaka]

They do make Underarmour style garment bottoms now. I bought a few pair when they came out. they didn't last long but I've heard they fixed the problems with the stitching.

[ewth8tr]

They do make Underarmour style garment bottoms now. I bought a few pair when they came out. they didn't last long but I've heard they fixed the problems with the stitching.

I got them too, though I swear they are longer than the normal ones.

[scottie]

I take it you don't venture out on the internet much.

I can unequivocally say that if one-piecers were the only garment option for me in my TBM days, I would not have worn them past my mission, not a chance. Crazy to think that from 1842 to 1979 they were the only option.

[Viking]

I think it just gradually evolved. If the prophet felt inclined to take them off when it was hot, it obviously was different at first.

There was no official pattern for quite a while either. Members just made their own. Eventually, someone suggested that they adopt a common pattern and the prophet (BY I think) agreed.

Speaking of temple recommends, it was quite a few years before they started using recommends (well after they came to Utah). At first it was a fairly simple process that was primarily a verification from your bishop that you were an active member. Over time they gradually added more and more questions. It wasn't until the 1930's or so that WoW questions were added to the TR questions. Of course, this was a significant factor in the evolution of WoW from counsel to commandment.

Interesting how all of this stuff evolves over time.

the few mormons in my pioneer heritage were all drinkers, smokers and coffee addicts in the old days

[falafel]

I can unequivocally say that if one-piecers were the only garment option for me in my TBM days, I would not have worn them past my mission, not a chance. Crazy to think that from 1842 to 1979 they were the only option.

I think its crazier that you could still get Gs with a collar in 1975.

[SuperGabers]

I think its crazier that you could still get Gs with a collar in 1975.

And I can't believe it took until '79 to get two-pieces! My poor mother!

[falafel]

And I can't believe it took until '79 to get two-pieces! My poor mother!

One of my wife's friends STILL wears a 1 piecer! Can you believe that?!

[SuperGabers]

One of my wife's friends STILL wears a 1 piecer! Can you believe that?!

Syck!

[CardiacCoug]

I think its crazier that you could still get Gs with a collar in 1975.

One of my grandfathers wore the ones with the collar that went to the ankles and wrists into the early '90s. He was born in 1901 and he much preferred the pre-1923 version until the day he died.

[falafel]

One of my grandfathers wore the ones with the collar that went to the ankles and wrists into the early '90s. He was born in 1901 and he much preferred the pre-1923 version until the day he died.

lol.

[Moliere]

Which further leads to the conclusion that fashioning my own garments is the only way to get around these problems. I feel guilty about making my own, as if in some way they aren't "sacred" if I don't buy them in a pink cellophane package. Bah.

you ma'am have been correlated. This is like feeling bad for not following the manual when teaching gospel doctrine.