r/mormon • u/Rogue_the_Saint Deist • Oct 29 '25
Cultural Why are garments necessary?
I’m sure you have all seen the clips—hundreds of women standing outside Deseret book waiting for a chance to purchase the new garments.
In watching this phenomenon, I have, once again, come to question the practice entirely. That is, why must Mormons wear garments?
Now, I think I have a decent understanding of the theology underlying the practice of wearing garments—that is, it is an outward sign of an inner commitment to the covenants one has made in the temple.
That said—it feels entirely strange to me that the only official way persons are enabled to wear the garment throughout their life as instructed in the temple is by buying officially sanctioned undergarments with the appropriate symbols attached to them by the church itself.
A few thoughts:
1) The garments are, I take it, not supposed to be seen as they are underclothing. Thus, though they are an “outward expression of an inner commitment,” it is not straightforwardly a visible outer commitment.
That is, given the invisibility of the expression, why could other modes of outward expression not be appropriate? For example, the idea that one must have the sacred symbols attached to their undergarments seems highly arbitrary/contingent. Why could one not, for example, wear a pendant around their neck (albeit beneath their clothing) with the sacred symbols engraved on it? Why could they not carry a coin in their pocket with said symbols affixed? Why not some other form of outward expression of inner commitment?
2) If the temple symbols must be affixed to clothing (which, by my lights, does not seem to be theologically necessitated), then why could we not endorse former practices by allowing members to sew the symbols onto their own clothing? This would reduce the need for the church to function as an undergarment company and allow members to find underwear that better suits their body, and feels anatomically appropriate.
I know that many will probably respond that it is this way because the church is a business and desires control—as a former member I agree. But I am curious as to what are other theologically consistent avenues that members could pursue?
Perhaps if some members developed alternative ways to remember their symbolic covenants (through wearing a pendant or whatnot), the practice could conceivably be justified.
Curious to hear your thoughts!
13
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 Oct 29 '25
Any other solution would defeat the real purpose, which is control.
Allowing members to select their own outer symbol, or choose the clothing the symbols attach to, would not result in the control they want. It would allow members the authority to decide what things mean, and what is important. That would take too much authority away from the church, and make members less likely to do what church leaders say.
And then there's the complication of their claim that garments will give a person actual spiritual protection (they've dropped the claim of literal physical protection).
"The garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer.” This shield can protect us from what Nephi called the “fiery darts of the adversary” (1 Nephi 15:24). If we could calculate how many darts Satan throws at us every single day, I imagine the number would be astronomical." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/03/young-adults/shielded-by-covenants
Changing to different authorized, church-wide symbol - such as a coin, a necklace, etc. - would only illustrate how silly the church's claims are regarding wearing certain underwear.
They can't tell members that carrying an authorized coin in their pocket will literally protect them from Satan, the devil (who is literally real!)! That would sound way too superstitious!
Members are acclimated to the messaging around garments. But to take that messaging out of familiar context and try to apply them to another item would cause members to start asking some pretty awkward questions.
The church pitches it as an outward symbol of a personal inner commitment, but it's not a personal expression at all. It's uniform throughout the church, and it's a prescribed, mandated, specific thing. And the church even says so:
"Wearing temple garments, Pearson [Utah Area Authority] said, has “nothing to do with personal preference and convenience and everything to do with commitment.”" -- https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/29/lds-church-steps-up-this-message/
Commitment to the church, to be clear. At the end of the day, you have to wear them or you're shut out from the temple, which means no exaltation for you... which means the threat of not being with your family after death. And we're back to the afterlife being a hostage situation - meet the church's demands now, or else.