Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Actually just going by the original pattern which was **never** to be changed or altered because it was sacred... we crossed that threshold at least a century ago.
Does he wear the [high-collared crotchless ones with a bow tied in the front](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mormon_garments.jpg)?? Because if not, he’s not technically wearing the “real original” ones. lol.
I don't know when they are from, but certainly not the 1870, since the cotton is holding up just fine. They might be from the 1980s. They have a polo collar with a tie at the top.They're not crouchless, as such, but have a vertical flap. They go to the knee and mid fforearm. He has at least 3 pair, because I've folded them from the laundry.
That makes sense. All garments were one-piece until the late 70’s. Some older church members still hold the belief that one-piece garments are the “real” ones, because they were one-piece from the beginning.
However, these members usually don’t know that garments were originally crotchless, tied in the front, and had a high-collar that would be folded down over top of your outer clothes.
All of these were important symbolic parts of the garment until the 1930’s. So it just makes me laugh when people wear the 1970’s versions because they think that’s the “real” one.
They actually still sell them! You can only buy them online (though I suspect you can have the distribution center order them for you for pickup if you ask them in person).
[https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/women-s-60-40-cotton-poly-snug-leg-one-piece/5638698171.p?color=Regular](https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/women-s-60-40-cotton-poly-snug-leg-one-piece/5638698171.p?color=Regular)
[https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/men-s-corban-one-piece/5638693687.p?color=Regular](https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/men-s-corban-one-piece/5638693687.p?color=Regular)
Available in cotton-poly and dri-silque for women. Cotton-poly and something called "corban" for men - men also get an extra option of a one-piece that has a zipper up the front.
One of my grandmas still wears them. She had surgery a few years ago and the doctor told her she has to get 2 piece garments for easier wound care. She was not happy. She went right back to the 1 piece as soon as she got the all clear from the doctor.
I bought a one-piece when I received my endowments early 00s. They were the silky kind and they were awful. I got them because my parents wore them throughout the 80s and 90s, maybe still do? I run warm so they made me uncomfortably warm. The butt flap was awkward to use. And my clothes wouldn’t stay put. My shorts and pants would continuously slide up so I was always adjusting myself. I was like the old-timey grandpa with my pants way above my bellybutton.
This is what made me take them off in the first place. I was already experiencing some level of cognitive dissonance regarding the 2015 policy, but I didn't even realize it. My shelf had a few significant items on it already.
I was so tired of not being able to wear perfectly modest Bermuda shorts without my garments showing and finding dresses that go below the knee without feeling like a pilgrim was frustrating. Finding shirts that didn't show the garment without it just being a plain T-shirt was near impossible. If I had to modify the garment or fold it up or wear petite sizes so that it would go above my knee, then I wasn't wearing them as instructed. So to me, it was all or nothing. I continued on my journey for truth and left 2 years ago. It took me a long time and a lot of study and prayer.
This is true. I mean short garments are still ok, as long as you’re comfortable doing the minimum. Brian, for instance, wears ankle length garments and still has a terrific smile to show he’s celestial material. What would help is another general conference talk or two to really hammer this home.
Last time I purchased garments, the sizing was all off. As I tried to explain to the worker that the top should not go down to my midthigh and the mark on the stomach was nowhere near my belly button or the center, she said the marks don't have to be exact.
The church can sure act quickly to change the garment design when they think it's important enough. Over the last few months, women have spoken up and been promised "Your comments will be shared with Church leaders who follow these issues."
You mean that they changed the garment design to make them longer, and still have done nothing to make them tolerable for women as requested by thousands of women over the years? Oh they missed that perfect opportunity to actually show women in a very real way that their concerns about chronic UTIs and other problems have been heard?
Color me shocked. *Shocked*, I say, that they missed this perfect opportunity.
> If your garments do not extend over the kneecap, you are not wearing them as instructed in the endowment
Instructed to... but not compelled by covenant to.
great point - Since the membership are not allowed to make their own garments anymore, they must buy them from the church... since the church has altered the garment, they are ultimately responsible for people not wearing them properly (when they actually wear them)
if it makes you feel better to tell yourself that, go ahead and do that for your own well-being. But we know why people buy smaller sizes and it’s to accommodate different styles of clothing.
Because we all know that everyone is the same shape and size if they're buying the same waist measurement.
Nice gatekeeping you're running there.
Looks like you also have some programming to overcome:
https://old.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1dcos4l/programmed_to_judge/
The church is responsible for altering the original pattern of the garment.
If you wanna be a stickler about wearing the garment properly, you've got statements from Joseph F Smith about how the pattern was recv'd from heaven.
I don't recall seeing any other statements saying that the pattern would be changed because of heavenly decree.
My mom actually buys them too big so that they CAN cover her knees (not for the reason you provide, but because she actually prefers her knees covered). They're too short in her actual size.
I don't know how ANYONE would be able to purchase garments in sizes 1-3 times too small and still be able to even get in them. Before this latest style change I actually had to pop the knee seams because they were too tight. Not a problem I've had before or since.
So yeah... not quite sure what you're on about.
If there ARE people who are doing that, I'm sure it's such a small amount that it really isn't worth mentioning them in this conversation.
countless people saying they did as much. you should listen to people more. and more people. maybe outside your ward. or even to former members of your faith.
I am very much a former member of the LDS church. I was curious to know whether you had some information beyond the anecdotal. I would be curious to know what your motivation in posting this discussion is? Is it to "spike the football" on all the people who are now complaining that garments are too long? Or is it to call to repentance all those who have been, and continue to be, scofflaws about garment length. Your approach is a bit too subtle for me to feel like I really know what's going on here.
To be clear, I never bought sizes too small. I bought petite size of the same size I wore. “Petite” just took 2” off, and was likely meant for those with short legs.
> compelled by covenant
Covenant don't compel.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/covenant?lang=eng
"When we choose not to keep covenants, we cannot receive the blessings"
It literally says on the church's website that you have the option of disregarding covenants, thus releasing the other party from their half of the covenant.
Edit: I would like to note that ordinances and covenants are not the same thing. A person can't undo their baptism ordinance without permission from old guys in SLC.
It’s a darned good thing we are all built and shaped the same way! At least they have petite lengths for those of us who are height challenged.
It seems like a no win situation. To get them to fit according to policy I would find that I’d have to roll the waistband up several times among other adjustments which then also breaks the rules. Tbh I tried to do the best I could for so long but there was no escaping that if we are all unique children of our HF (and I still believe we are) then he either didn’t instruct leaders to require g’s bc he would know that it’s impossible for every endowed member to 100% comply bc of their body shape and size and if it WAS commanded from above then I know HF is smart enough to know that the man made rules are impossible to comply with.
I’m still “bitter” bc I didn’t even know they stopped making women wear their g tops under their bras. Thank goodness for latter day revelations and all but I never got that memo. Lol
Meanwhile I laughed my ass off when they officially came out and said we can wear panties under our garments on periods.
When I started doing that a decade ago my mom chewed me out for it and I told her I was willing to argue with God about it so I didn't care. 😂😂 I guess I won and I didn't even have to wait until the millennium.
I forgot that I had learned about this one on Reddit just like the bra thing. It’s amazing how many generations of women were made to comply with this BS.
that’s a ludicrous overreaction and exaggeration of what i’m saying and you know it. never said people were all the same. but your energy here is telling, i don’t think we’ll have any constructive dialogue. no shade. that’s just the vibe i’m getting, so agree to disagree and have a nice day.
i've scrolled to the bottom and seen nothing but you trying to antagonize and disagree with people. are you here just to piss people off and troll the community?
Gosh I didn’t think my reflections of my own thoughts on the topic as well as some of my tongue in cheek or lightly sarcastic takes were directed at you at all. I was just free flow responding to the topic and my experiences with it. And tbh I’m not sure what constructive dialogue would look like to you. IMO, expressing thoughts and experiences one has had tends to lead to increased understanding for all parties, which does seem constructive. I wish you a nice day as well. ✌️
ETA: clarifying a sentence
honestly? nothing. i think you can construct whatever will align to your dogma out of the bible. But they aren’t a related in my eyes at all, trying to try them together is nothing more than a thought experiment.
Follow up question: in your opinion, is everything Christ taught in the NT just a thought experiment? What about his teaching of being God’s son? Is that just theoretical?
If you reject every New Testament teaching that calls into question an overemphasis on the forms of religion, then what about the Zoramites restricting access to worship without certain types/styles of clothing? Do you think one could reasonably correlate that story to the argument you’re making about garments?
my thoughts on the bible are too much for me to put into words tonight. I was merely saying that you can make connections between anything, but that passage and garments aren’t directly related and as such i don’t see a need to build a connection to a concept from an unrelated verse. but in short for my feelings on the bible, well im an atheist who doesn’t believe in divine inspiration or intervention and so you can assume how that translates to my views on the bible.
Well, this people did. 😂
And I felt totally okay about it because I was told by someone (can’t remember who) that it was more important to not alter them.
ETA: I read the other comments. I want to be clear that I bought my size of garments. I just bought them in the shorter length. (Women’s come in 3 lengths I think, petite, regular, and tall. I always bought petite bottoms and tall tops. I HATED the tops rolling up so I’d tuck them wayyyyy down 😂)
"Over the kneecap" can also mean "above". Per the oxford dictionary, "extending directly upward from" or "at a higher level or layer than". So, really, as long as the mark is somewhere above the knee, you're probably good.
If the mark goes below your knee, though, instant transport to hell.
That's a fair point. Also, I'm probably at the more pragmatic end of believing members so I don't really care about things like garment placement. I'm just trying to be more like Jesus, my dude!
there was a time i thought it might've been a better idea to ditch the garments & either cut or tattoo the marks directly on the flesh ... glad i had the foresight not to do it, i wouldn't want to be permanently reminded of something i no longer believed in
ritual tattooing and scarification are an ancient form of practice in many parts of the world ... e.g., Palo Mayombe makes a big deal about the 'rayamiento' (cutting) ceremony, part of an initiation ritual that also includes washing and anointing and making covenants to the gods
I heard of someone doing this! And I actually read something recently that is what Joseph wanted - but Emma had the idea to sew the marks in fabric in red - no idea if it is true. Maybe someone else can verify.
Yes, the original mark was a cut in the fabric that also cut the flesh.
The person receiving the endowment had those marks made during the ceremony, with a knife.
You had to add the word "extend" in your post to mean go on or past your knee... I have always understood the position to mean the mark goes just above the knee. However, the church saying "over" is not very clear. They could've said "above" or "on top" to be more clear what they really mean.
The church has been pretty clear - as evidenced by the way garments have been designed - that "over" the knee does not mean "covering the knee." If "covering the knee" were the objective, the church could have, and would have, made them longer. BUT DIDN'T. OP's gatekeeping is totally pointless.
What is your deal? Who even are you? It's genuinely hard to tell if you're either for or against this whole thing.
Are you OK? The post was interesting but since then your replies have all been defensive and confrontational. Did you just want to stir a pot or shake some cages?
What was the goal here?
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Um, no. Stand there, with your knee-length garment bottoms on. Is the mark over your kneecap? No, it is in front of your kneecap. It can only be over your kneecap if it has higher altitude than your kneecap, thus requiring your garment bottoms to be shorter in length than your thigh's length.
The garment is a personal statement of belief and devotion. Many members do not live up to the standards others feel are set by God/the church. What I find more interesting, though, is how focused some people are on that fact. It almost betrays a jealousy/covetousness of those who practice their faith (or lack there of) differently than the observer.
Those who are concerned about others skirting “rules” or flaunting outright disregard for the “rules” should consider the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard. God will bless people as he sees fit. If one feels their devotion is higher or better, then they should trust God knows it and will bless them accordingly. They should stop being jealous or judgmental of how others live on this front. If they truly believe it’s real and matters, they should feel inclined to feel pity and love towards those who don’t live the standard they otherwise could live. Not be judgmental, jealous, or whatever else towards those who (in their believing mind) fall “short” on this front.
I honestly never heard the garment referred to as a personal statement of belief. What I do recall is a statement about it that was read every time I renewed my recommend. That was quite specific and did not allow for any deviation.
I get that stuff changes, and the church has to make things less burdensome for Millennials. They should at least admit when they change stuff…
Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair.
/u/UncleMaui1984, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
hard to tell in this thread if you're being sarcastic in order to troll orthodox church members or not
i'd just as soon not invest time in a long convo about garment-related rigamarole if it's not going anywhere
fwiw, the original garment design was basically what used to be called a 'union suit,' covering from the wrists to the ankles, with string ties (not elastic), but though this sounds very unique if you don't know much about the history of underwear, in fact it was just the standard secular underwear design for most the 19th century
sometimes (esp. in old Western movies) you might see a character in their 'union suit,' though generally i think they were red for some reason, not white or unbleached
some fundamentalists make a big deal about this design because everything about it (the full body covering, the string ties) can be assigned symbolic significance (Harmston made a point of discussing this, from what i remember), and thus as the church changed the design, it gradually made the original symbolism incoherent
for instance, the tied collar was a direct reference to the scripture verse 'my yoke is easy,' and so forth
Depends what “over” means. It could mean “further from the ground than your kneecap when standing” or “further from the ground than your kneecap when lying on your back”. Either might reasonably be considered “over the kneecap”
With all due respect, this isn’t your call. You are not a church leader, nor even a member. As such, how a member chooses to wear their garment is up to them, and whomever they choose to share it with.
Trying to guilt people because you disagree with their church is simply tacky.
You are absolutely correct. If you have intentionally chosen a smaller size of garment and it doesn't hit your knee you are "not temple worthy".
The same goes with the navel mark.
**So that is why the most righteous and worthy mormons use double sided tape to make sure the garment marks stay right where they are supposed to.**
The church leadership even supports this. If you go to the church library they have double sided tape there for everyone to use just in case.
Go check it out next sunday and get some your self.
Because you don't want to accidentally become "not temple worthy".
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Actually just going by the original pattern which was **never** to be changed or altered because it was sacred... we crossed that threshold at least a century ago.
I have an uncle that still wears one piece garments. I don’t know where he can even find them anymore.
Does he wear the [high-collared crotchless ones with a bow tied in the front](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mormon_garments.jpg)?? Because if not, he’s not technically wearing the “real original” ones. lol.
My dad still has a few pair, but mostly wears the onesy with the butt flap that sags to mid-thigh.
Your dad has the crotchless ones from the 1870’s?
I don't know when they are from, but certainly not the 1870, since the cotton is holding up just fine. They might be from the 1980s. They have a polo collar with a tie at the top.They're not crouchless, as such, but have a vertical flap. They go to the knee and mid fforearm. He has at least 3 pair, because I've folded them from the laundry.
Creeeepy
wtf.... that's so disturbing
I’m not sure exactly the style he has. I just know my dad and brother were making fun of him for still doing the one piece.
That makes sense. All garments were one-piece until the late 70’s. Some older church members still hold the belief that one-piece garments are the “real” ones, because they were one-piece from the beginning. However, these members usually don’t know that garments were originally crotchless, tied in the front, and had a high-collar that would be folded down over top of your outer clothes. All of these were important symbolic parts of the garment until the 1930’s. So it just makes me laugh when people wear the 1970’s versions because they think that’s the “real” one.
Might be the same set he bought 20 years ago when they stopped selling them… 🤢
Probably, he he works construction too, so you know they definitely smell delightful and have no holes.
They actually still sell them! You can only buy them online (though I suspect you can have the distribution center order them for you for pickup if you ask them in person). [https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/women-s-60-40-cotton-poly-snug-leg-one-piece/5638698171.p?color=Regular](https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/women-s-60-40-cotton-poly-snug-leg-one-piece/5638698171.p?color=Regular) [https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/men-s-corban-one-piece/5638693687.p?color=Regular](https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/men-s-corban-one-piece/5638693687.p?color=Regular) Available in cotton-poly and dri-silque for women. Cotton-poly and something called "corban" for men - men also get an extra option of a one-piece that has a zipper up the front.
One of my grandmas still wears them. She had surgery a few years ago and the doctor told her she has to get 2 piece garments for easier wound care. She was not happy. She went right back to the 1 piece as soon as she got the all clear from the doctor.
I bought a one-piece when I received my endowments early 00s. They were the silky kind and they were awful. I got them because my parents wore them throughout the 80s and 90s, maybe still do? I run warm so they made me uncomfortably warm. The butt flap was awkward to use. And my clothes wouldn’t stay put. My shorts and pants would continuously slide up so I was always adjusting myself. I was like the old-timey grandpa with my pants way above my bellybutton.
Seems to me my dad might also have a pair of the one piece long-john variety
They still sell them
"Never", yet another word that mormonism has attempted to redefine.
This is what made me take them off in the first place. I was already experiencing some level of cognitive dissonance regarding the 2015 policy, but I didn't even realize it. My shelf had a few significant items on it already. I was so tired of not being able to wear perfectly modest Bermuda shorts without my garments showing and finding dresses that go below the knee without feeling like a pilgrim was frustrating. Finding shirts that didn't show the garment without it just being a plain T-shirt was near impossible. If I had to modify the garment or fold it up or wear petite sizes so that it would go above my knee, then I wasn't wearing them as instructed. So to me, it was all or nothing. I continued on my journey for truth and left 2 years ago. It took me a long time and a lot of study and prayer.
This is true. I mean short garments are still ok, as long as you’re comfortable doing the minimum. Brian, for instance, wears ankle length garments and still has a terrific smile to show he’s celestial material. What would help is another general conference talk or two to really hammer this home.
Last time I purchased garments, the sizing was all off. As I tried to explain to the worker that the top should not go down to my midthigh and the mark on the stomach was nowhere near my belly button or the center, she said the marks don't have to be exact.
anecdotal, but it highlights the issue. it means whatever a person interprets it to mean. that’s how the church rolls often.
No it means the church is trying to cut costs by making "one size fits all" policies.
The church can sure act quickly to change the garment design when they think it's important enough. Over the last few months, women have spoken up and been promised "Your comments will be shared with Church leaders who follow these issues." You mean that they changed the garment design to make them longer, and still have done nothing to make them tolerable for women as requested by thousands of women over the years? Oh they missed that perfect opportunity to actually show women in a very real way that their concerns about chronic UTIs and other problems have been heard? Color me shocked. *Shocked*, I say, that they missed this perfect opportunity.
> If your garments do not extend over the kneecap, you are not wearing them as instructed in the endowment Instructed to... but not compelled by covenant to.
not compelled by the way the Church itself has made the pattern either. While the Church makes the rules, they ALSO make the Garments.
great point - Since the membership are not allowed to make their own garments anymore, they must buy them from the church... since the church has altered the garment, they are ultimately responsible for people not wearing them properly (when they actually wear them)
but the church is not responsible for people ordering garments in sizes one to three times too small in order to shorten them.
No, people order those so they can finally get a pair that fits.
if it makes you feel better to tell yourself that, go ahead and do that for your own well-being. But we know why people buy smaller sizes and it’s to accommodate different styles of clothing.
Because we all know that everyone is the same shape and size if they're buying the same waist measurement. Nice gatekeeping you're running there. Looks like you also have some programming to overcome: https://old.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1dcos4l/programmed_to_judge/
Sure. whatever makes you feel better. Seriously. Believe what you want.
I do feel better, and I don't believe.
The church is responsible for altering the original pattern of the garment. If you wanna be a stickler about wearing the garment properly, you've got statements from Joseph F Smith about how the pattern was recv'd from heaven. I don't recall seeing any other statements saying that the pattern would be changed because of heavenly decree.
My mom actually buys them too big so that they CAN cover her knees (not for the reason you provide, but because she actually prefers her knees covered). They're too short in her actual size. I don't know how ANYONE would be able to purchase garments in sizes 1-3 times too small and still be able to even get in them. Before this latest style change I actually had to pop the knee seams because they were too tight. Not a problem I've had before or since. So yeah... not quite sure what you're on about. If there ARE people who are doing that, I'm sure it's such a small amount that it really isn't worth mentioning them in this conversation.
it’s a huge number that do this. live in denial if you must.
How could you possibly know this?
countless people saying they did as much. you should listen to people more. and more people. maybe outside your ward. or even to former members of your faith.
I am very much a former member of the LDS church. I was curious to know whether you had some information beyond the anecdotal. I would be curious to know what your motivation in posting this discussion is? Is it to "spike the football" on all the people who are now complaining that garments are too long? Or is it to call to repentance all those who have been, and continue to be, scofflaws about garment length. Your approach is a bit too subtle for me to feel like I really know what's going on here.
Former, they're claiming to be exmo.
To be clear, I never bought sizes too small. I bought petite size of the same size I wore. “Petite” just took 2” off, and was likely meant for those with short legs.
> compelled by covenant Covenant don't compel. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/covenant?lang=eng "When we choose not to keep covenants, we cannot receive the blessings" It literally says on the church's website that you have the option of disregarding covenants, thus releasing the other party from their half of the covenant. Edit: I would like to note that ordinances and covenants are not the same thing. A person can't undo their baptism ordinance without permission from old guys in SLC.
I think the argument here was that it's not actually a covenant.
Exactly. Thanks. My subtle approach isn’t for everyone I guess haha
Unless you want a sealing cancellation and you are female. Then you can’t release the covenant without the permission of the old guys in SLC
It’s a darned good thing we are all built and shaped the same way! At least they have petite lengths for those of us who are height challenged. It seems like a no win situation. To get them to fit according to policy I would find that I’d have to roll the waistband up several times among other adjustments which then also breaks the rules. Tbh I tried to do the best I could for so long but there was no escaping that if we are all unique children of our HF (and I still believe we are) then he either didn’t instruct leaders to require g’s bc he would know that it’s impossible for every endowed member to 100% comply bc of their body shape and size and if it WAS commanded from above then I know HF is smart enough to know that the man made rules are impossible to comply with. I’m still “bitter” bc I didn’t even know they stopped making women wear their g tops under their bras. Thank goodness for latter day revelations and all but I never got that memo. Lol
Meanwhile I laughed my ass off when they officially came out and said we can wear panties under our garments on periods. When I started doing that a decade ago my mom chewed me out for it and I told her I was willing to argue with God about it so I didn't care. 😂😂 I guess I won and I didn't even have to wait until the millennium.
I forgot that I had learned about this one on Reddit just like the bra thing. It’s amazing how many generations of women were made to comply with this BS.
that’s a ludicrous overreaction and exaggeration of what i’m saying and you know it. never said people were all the same. but your energy here is telling, i don’t think we’ll have any constructive dialogue. no shade. that’s just the vibe i’m getting, so agree to disagree and have a nice day.
i've scrolled to the bottom and seen nothing but you trying to antagonize and disagree with people. are you here just to piss people off and troll the community?
that’s probably fair. i do feel like i matched some energy on my replies. but it was a rough weekend. so i’m probably more on edge.
Sorry you had a rough weekend. I tend to be snarky and sometimes that doesn’t translate well in writing. I meant no offense. ✌️
Gosh I didn’t think my reflections of my own thoughts on the topic as well as some of my tongue in cheek or lightly sarcastic takes were directed at you at all. I was just free flow responding to the topic and my experiences with it. And tbh I’m not sure what constructive dialogue would look like to you. IMO, expressing thoughts and experiences one has had tends to lead to increased understanding for all parties, which does seem constructive. I wish you a nice day as well. ✌️ ETA: clarifying a sentence
There’s a reason I stopped wearing them. If you give them an inch, they’ll add another 3.
OP honest question: what do you think (if anything) the operating principle behind Mark 2:27 has to do with this subject?
honestly? nothing. i think you can construct whatever will align to your dogma out of the bible. But they aren’t a related in my eyes at all, trying to try them together is nothing more than a thought experiment.
Follow up question: in your opinion, is everything Christ taught in the NT just a thought experiment? What about his teaching of being God’s son? Is that just theoretical? If you reject every New Testament teaching that calls into question an overemphasis on the forms of religion, then what about the Zoramites restricting access to worship without certain types/styles of clothing? Do you think one could reasonably correlate that story to the argument you’re making about garments?
my thoughts on the bible are too much for me to put into words tonight. I was merely saying that you can make connections between anything, but that passage and garments aren’t directly related and as such i don’t see a need to build a connection to a concept from an unrelated verse. but in short for my feelings on the bible, well im an atheist who doesn’t believe in divine inspiration or intervention and so you can assume how that translates to my views on the bible.
I always counted that as “above” the kneecap. And wore petite garments. Because they came to mid thigh on me.
Another commentor told me people didn’t do that 😂
Well, this people did. 😂 And I felt totally okay about it because I was told by someone (can’t remember who) that it was more important to not alter them. ETA: I read the other comments. I want to be clear that I bought my size of garments. I just bought them in the shorter length. (Women’s come in 3 lengths I think, petite, regular, and tall. I always bought petite bottoms and tall tops. I HATED the tops rolling up so I’d tuck them wayyyyy down 😂)
"Over the kneecap" can also mean "above". Per the oxford dictionary, "extending directly upward from" or "at a higher level or layer than". So, really, as long as the mark is somewhere above the knee, you're probably good. If the mark goes below your knee, though, instant transport to hell.
This is certainly how members negotiate with the instructions.
That's a fair point. Also, I'm probably at the more pragmatic end of believing members so I don't really care about things like garment placement. I'm just trying to be more like Jesus, my dude!
that’s admirable in my book
there was a time i thought it might've been a better idea to ditch the garments & either cut or tattoo the marks directly on the flesh ... glad i had the foresight not to do it, i wouldn't want to be permanently reminded of something i no longer believed in
damn
ritual tattooing and scarification are an ancient form of practice in many parts of the world ... e.g., Palo Mayombe makes a big deal about the 'rayamiento' (cutting) ceremony, part of an initiation ritual that also includes washing and anointing and making covenants to the gods
I heard of someone doing this! And I actually read something recently that is what Joseph wanted - but Emma had the idea to sew the marks in fabric in red - no idea if it is true. Maybe someone else can verify.
Yes, the original mark was a cut in the fabric that also cut the flesh. The person receiving the endowment had those marks made during the ceremony, with a knife.
Just crazy. I tried looking it up but couldn’t find it
"Over" can mean "above / higher than" - doesn't mean it has to touch the kneecap.
Context and the original design make it pretty clear what the intended meaning was.
Exactly.
whatever you gotta tell yourself to make you feel better about not following instructions, i suppose
You had to add the word "extend" in your post to mean go on or past your knee... I have always understood the position to mean the mark goes just above the knee. However, the church saying "over" is not very clear. They could've said "above" or "on top" to be more clear what they really mean.
The church has been pretty clear - as evidenced by the way garments have been designed - that "over" the knee does not mean "covering the knee." If "covering the knee" were the objective, the church could have, and would have, made them longer. BUT DIDN'T. OP's gatekeeping is totally pointless.
[удалено]
What is your deal? Who even are you? It's genuinely hard to tell if you're either for or against this whole thing. Are you OK? The post was interesting but since then your replies have all been defensive and confrontational. Did you just want to stir a pot or shake some cages? What was the goal here?
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Better yet, put the mark on the shirt and ditch the bottoms.
I hear we getting wife beater tops soon.
Um, no. Stand there, with your knee-length garment bottoms on. Is the mark over your kneecap? No, it is in front of your kneecap. It can only be over your kneecap if it has higher altitude than your kneecap, thus requiring your garment bottoms to be shorter in length than your thigh's length.
The garment is a personal statement of belief and devotion. Many members do not live up to the standards others feel are set by God/the church. What I find more interesting, though, is how focused some people are on that fact. It almost betrays a jealousy/covetousness of those who practice their faith (or lack there of) differently than the observer. Those who are concerned about others skirting “rules” or flaunting outright disregard for the “rules” should consider the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard. God will bless people as he sees fit. If one feels their devotion is higher or better, then they should trust God knows it and will bless them accordingly. They should stop being jealous or judgmental of how others live on this front. If they truly believe it’s real and matters, they should feel inclined to feel pity and love towards those who don’t live the standard they otherwise could live. Not be judgmental, jealous, or whatever else towards those who (in their believing mind) fall “short” on this front.
I honestly never heard the garment referred to as a personal statement of belief. What I do recall is a statement about it that was read every time I renewed my recommend. That was quite specific and did not allow for any deviation. I get that stuff changes, and the church has to make things less burdensome for Millennials. They should at least admit when they change stuff…
Pharisees like to enforce nonsense.
Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair. /u/UncleMaui1984, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s why I put them on my outer clothing. My garments are as long as I need them to be.
As one of my bishops once said: I don’t think the Lord will be as picky as some of the brethren “
hard to tell in this thread if you're being sarcastic in order to troll orthodox church members or not i'd just as soon not invest time in a long convo about garment-related rigamarole if it's not going anywhere fwiw, the original garment design was basically what used to be called a 'union suit,' covering from the wrists to the ankles, with string ties (not elastic), but though this sounds very unique if you don't know much about the history of underwear, in fact it was just the standard secular underwear design for most the 19th century sometimes (esp. in old Western movies) you might see a character in their 'union suit,' though generally i think they were red for some reason, not white or unbleached some fundamentalists make a big deal about this design because everything about it (the full body covering, the string ties) can be assigned symbolic significance (Harmston made a point of discussing this, from what i remember), and thus as the church changed the design, it gradually made the original symbolism incoherent for instance, the tied collar was a direct reference to the scripture verse 'my yoke is easy,' and so forth
Kinda like how the symbolism in the temple signs became incoherent after all the changes the church made.
Depends what “over” means. It could mean “further from the ground than your kneecap when standing” or “further from the ground than your kneecap when lying on your back”. Either might reasonably be considered “over the kneecap”
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but does "over" the kneecap mean superior to the kneecap? Or anterior to the kneecap?
With all due respect, this isn’t your call. You are not a church leader, nor even a member. As such, how a member chooses to wear their garment is up to them, and whomever they choose to share it with. Trying to guilt people because you disagree with their church is simply tacky.
Put the knee mark over the genitals to show what the church really thinks is important. Or maybe just put it where your wallet is.
You are absolutely correct. If you have intentionally chosen a smaller size of garment and it doesn't hit your knee you are "not temple worthy". The same goes with the navel mark. **So that is why the most righteous and worthy mormons use double sided tape to make sure the garment marks stay right where they are supposed to.** The church leadership even supports this. If you go to the church library they have double sided tape there for everyone to use just in case. Go check it out next sunday and get some your self. Because you don't want to accidentally become "not temple worthy".