Close Topic Options

Garment touch the skin? - Page 4

When I went for my endowments, I remember the wife of the Temple President saying that is logical during the time of the month to wear underwear first and then the bottom garment.

skin touch Garment

In my experience, folks who find regular "excuses" not to wear their garments or to modify them, I.e. during exercise (even alone in their own home), sleeping nude, to wear a special outfit like an evening dress, etc., generally struggle with their attitude about the church, also. This reinforces for me the purpose of keeping the garments next to the skin as much as possible, and wearing them (correctly) as much as possible. Even if we don't see the symbols, just the garment itself is a reminder of the covenants we've made, not to mention keeping our modesty.

Garment touch the skin? Studies Doctrine Mormon

I think we could go to the absurd. For example, a garment can certainly rest over a bandage that you wear.

Rather off topic, but... I've heard it said on more than one occasion that we should first address our questions to the stake presidency (as one member did here). I believe the answer that she received is the most "correct" among all I read here.

Page 4 skin touch Garment

Why does the Church keep saying that we should wear our garments all the time, in the meantime they do mention the exceptions? For most non-members, when they hear that we should wear our garments (or magic underwear) at all times, that means we wear them at all times, like in the shower, or while being intimate with our spouse.

skin touch Garment

I agree with Farseer, we should wear them all they time except for purposes of cleanliness.

Why do we assume some sort of voluntary activity frees us from the requirement of wearing our garments or simply dressing modestly? This has been on my mind lately. Why do we think going swimming means men can go topless, and women can wear swimsuits that reveal a lot more than a garment ever would. It's not impossible to swim with more covering. People have done it for centuries, and it's only in the last century that people slowly began to more and more undress and considering it acceptable. Women for example don't have to wear mini skirts to play Tennis. If a tournament wouldn't let you participate because your not "dressed appropriately" I'd rather not go than violate my covenants with God just so I can play Tennis. I mean, we should have priorities in regards to that.

Garment touch the skin?

I agree with you. There are more and more justifications to not be moral or have morals... Examples are given in a lot of the Mormon celebrity personality Threads who participate in suggestive material and then refer to it as just "a job", thing is being a stripper or a prostitute is just "a job" too. However, not to lose focus, the main topic here is whether the bra for instance should be worn over or under the garment. Is there official resources for this?

Garment touch skin - Page 4

Just imagine how much control can be had over you by telling you that you must wear a garment bought only from a certain place and only with specific symbols on it. That you must never remove it and that you are essentially unworthy and unprotected if you do. It is a system of control over you because it speaks to your subconscious.

Garment touch skin Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 4

From what I know the garment is supposed to be the first thing that touches the skin and not the other way around, for instance in a woman's case the bra should be outside of the garment and not the other way around.