LDS Garments: Why I Want Out of This Club

[NorthwestUteFan]

I believe they are called, "Extra Support".

...which is a complete misnomer.

Following an epic breakdown in household labor relations and the ensuing laundry strike I was recently forced through attrition to wear my only such 'drawers' on a recent Sunday.

When I first put them on they felt great, if only a bit warm. It was a cool day so I wasn't concerned at first.

Then as I started to walk around they began "the creep". At first it was a slight shifting down the thighs. Then the downward slide became an unstoppable plunge to their 'happy spot', where they stayed. Each time I hitched them up to again 'gird my loins', they would swiftly work their way back down. They also do not breathe as well as advertised. Despite an outside high temperature of 54 degrees, I was sweating in my pants like a cold Mojito on a hot New Orleans evening.

This 'happy spot' placed the crotch support approximately 3 inches below where it should have been. To make matters worse not only did this mean I was essentially running 'wild and free', but the inner portion of my upper thighs also rubbed together, entwining the short curly hairs on each thigh into a sweaty, depilating mat which soon rendered said upper thighs smooth and utterly devoid of hair.

To make matters worse, I had to teach the EQ lesson while suffering, unsupported, in my own private sweatbox.

[RobinFinderson]

doesn't one have to provide proof of active duty status to be able to do so?

Yes. But that is beside the point. The church wants some conformity about garments, which is understandable, but ultimately wearing garments is about the individual's covenant with God. The military exceptions to what beehive industries will manufacture shows that it is the presence of the symbols that matters most. Since it doesn't take any authority to produce those symbols, it just seems that for a member to respectfully create his/her own garments would be an issue between that person and God, and that any policy coming from the church would fall into the 'practical guidelines' area of church opinion, and not the 'doctrines that determine eternal worthiness' territory.

[RobinFinderson]

...which is a complete misnomer.

Following an epic breakdown in household labor relations and the ensuing laundry strike I was recently forced through attrition to wear my only such 'drawers' on a recent Sunday.

When I first put them on they felt great, if only a bit warm. It was a cool day so I wasn't concerned at first.

Then as I started to walk around they began "the creep". At first it was a slight shifting down the thighs. Then the downward slide became an unstoppable plunge to their 'happy spot', where they stayed. Each time I hitched them up to again 'gird my loins', they would swiftly work their way back down. They also do not breathe as well as advertised. Despite an outside high temperature of 54 degrees, I was sweating in my pants like a cold Mojito on a hot New Orleans evening.

This 'happy spot' placed the crotch support approximately 3 inches below where it should have been. To make matters worse not only did this mean I was essentially running 'wild and free', but the inner portion of my upper thighs also rubbed together, entwining the short curly hairs on each thigh into a sweaty, depilating mat which soon rendered said upper thighs smooth and utterly devoid of hair.

To make matters worse, I had to teach the EQ lesson while suffering, unsupported, in my own private sweatbox.

This might be the grossest thing I have ever seen on the internet.

[Jacob]

...which is a complete misnomer.

Following an epic breakdown in household labor relations and the ensuing laundry strike I was recently forced through attrition to wear my only such 'drawers' on a recent Sunday.

When I first put them on they felt great, if only a bit warm. It was a cool day so I wasn't concerned at first.

Then as I started to walk around they began "the creep". At first it was a slight shifting down the thighs. Then the downward slide became an unstoppable plunge to their 'happy spot', where they stayed. Each time I hitched them up to again 'gird my loins', they would swiftly work their way back down. They also do not breathe as well as advertised. Despite an outside high temperature of 54 degrees, I was sweating in my pants like a cold Mojito on a hot New Orleans evening.

This 'happy spot' placed the crotch support approximately 3 inches below where it should have been. To make matters worse not only did this mean I was essentially running 'wild and free', but the inner portion of my upper thighs also rubbed together, entwining the short curly hairs on each thigh into a sweaty, depilating mat which soon rendered said upper thighs smooth and utterly devoid of hair.

To make matters worse, I had to teach the EQ lesson while suffering, unsupported, in my own private sweatbox.

I complained to the old gentleman working at the garment store about this fact---that the rise on the waist is far too high and it doesn't fit right. His response: He had complained to the powers that be that the rise was too low and the he reqested more length bewteen the crotch and the waist. For a certain generation, the waistline is supposed to reach the rib cage, I guess.

[falafel]

All I'm saying is that it is verboten according to the official handbook. Certain exceptions apply to active military personnel. Infer what you want.

As for me. I wear some of the military versions, though I'm not military and I intend to fabricate my own in the future.

[Jeff Lebowski]

When did it become verboten? Making one's own used to be the only way to have them.

Yes. For many years, members just came up with their own pattern. After several years they decided that it might be a good idea to standardize the pattern a bit, but it was a long time after that before the church got into the business of manufacturing the garments.

The original pattern was ankle and wrist length. It wasn't until well into the 20th century before they shortened the sleeves and legs. Of course, it was scandalous since it gave LDS women the green light to show a little skin.

[falafel]

Yes. But that is beside the point. The church wants some conformity about garments, which is understandable, but ultimately wearing garments is about the individual's covenant with God. The military exceptions to what beehive industries will manufacture shows that it is the presence of the symbols that matters most. Since it doesn't take any authority to produce those symbols, it just seems that for a member to respectfully create his/her own garments would be an issue between that person and God, and that any policy coming from the church would fall into the 'practical guidelines' area of church opinion, and not the 'doctrines that determine eternal worthiness' territory.

I agree. As long as the garments you make at home are substantially similar in appearance and fit, and include all of the markings, I don't see what's wrong with homemade garments. I just can't see God caring about it as long as I'm wearing them in the manner in which we've been instructed.

[RC Vikings]

Of course, it was scandalous since it gave LDS women the green light to show a little skin.

Is their a reason they put little sleeves on the woman g's.

[falafel]

Yes. For many years, members just came up with their own pattern. After several years they decided that it might be a good idea to standardize the pattern a bit, but it was a long time after that before the church got into the business of manufacturing the garments.

The original pattern was ankle and wrist length. It wasn't until well into the 20th century before they shortened the sleeves and legs. Of course, it was scandalous since it gave LDS women the green light to show a little skin.

Now, for some reason, I don't think you can even get a copy of the authorized pattern. I think when the church went bargain basement with their pricing, they decided to stop providing the patterns.

On a related note, you could, until very recently I think, make your own temple clothes. My wife has a very cool vintage set of temple clothes (i.e. the articles in the envelope) that includes a beautiful handmade apron that was handed down from her great grandmother. I doubt I'll be handing down my temple clothes to my progeny.

[RobinFinderson]

I doubt I'll be handing down my temple clothes to my progeny.

Hopefully you will be wearing them in your coffin!

[falafel]

Hopefully you will be wearing them in your coffin!

I wonder what that means about my wife's great grandma?

I also think burying people in their temple clothes is a sort of goofy tradition. Are we supposed to believe that that is the wardrobe of the afterlife? I sure don't want to show up underdressed.

[wuapinmon]

I wonder what that means about my wife's great grandma?

I also think burying people in their temple clothes is a sort of goofy tradition. Are we supposed to believe that that is the wardrobe of the afterlife? I sure don't want to show up underdressed.

My dad was cremated. We just had them place the clothes in the coffin, since he was literally a deadly infectious biological hazard. Apparently some poor soul unnecessarily frankenstein-stitched the top of his head back on after they took out his brain, but the possibility of prion infection was too much to ask anyone, even the morticians, to put clothes on a 500 lbs. man.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This might be the grossest thing I have ever seen on the internet.

Wow, tough crowd.

Be glad you don't have any need to experience that particular personal hell.

[Portland Ute]

I have a pair of "under armour" style bottoms. I've worn them less than 10 times.

The seems are coming apart.

Maybe it's my washing machine. Except the rest of my clothes don't have this problem.

[marsupial]

I was flipping through Cosmo at the checkout register. Cover story: Things a woman should never wear to bed. It made me think of this thread.