Many Latter-day Saint women are excited about big changes coming to temple garments.
Among the differences, is a sleeveless version of the sacred underclothing for members who’ve received temple endowments.
But it’s not all good feelings. Some women are conflicted or even feel betrayed. For years, they felt judged if they didn't cover their shoulders, or they sacrificed comfort and personal style to follow the rules only to have them change now.
Where this leaves frustrated members is a “perennial question,” said American religion historian Jana Riess, a Latter-day Saint and senior columnist at the Religion News Service. She believes more explanation from church leadership would help ease the transition and tension.
“I think I do not speak only for myself in wishing that the church would acknowledge the voices of women in driving this decision,” she said. “That doesn't feel like it's too much to ask.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said the garment changes are especially for members in hot and humid areas.
Riess believes that’s not the whole story. She cited a church survey done about a decade ago asking women about their garment experiences and opinions.
“Many of the changes that we're seeing now are the result of that, and women speaking up and writing letters to church leaders about how the garments fit and how they feel,” she said. “And yet none of that is ever forthcoming it feels.”
If church leaders acknowledged the impact of women, it would help women “feel that their voices are important, that their opinions are listened to.”
What might that sound like? Riess gave some example language: “‘We asked women how they felt about garments, and we decided to make some changes after prayer, based on what women had inspired us to pray about.’”
She added, “I don't think that would be that hard.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Ciara Hulet: Why do you think the garment change happened now?
Jan Reiss: I think it's probably multiple factors, one of which is the globalization of the church, [and] it’s growing in parts of the Global South. But I think also it is in response to some lack of compliance on the part of younger members, [and] some need to adapt to modern dress and modern sensibilities.
CH: Is there also a worry about people leaving the church?
I do think that it is a response to this phenomenon of more people in the United States leaving the church, or just simply having more secular sensibilities. It's less of a default position for some members that the church should encompass every aspect of their lives, including their underclothing. So [the change] is a bit of a concession. It's not enough of a concession for some people, and it's too much of a concession for other people.
CH: Will this make a difference for U.S. members who aren't wearing garments as much or thinking about leaving the church?
JR: That's a hard thing to say. For some people who are already one foot out the door, I don't think it will make much of a difference. But for other people who want to stay in and really are looking for ways for the church to accommodate their lives and a more modern take on things, including bodily autonomy, yes, I think it could make a difference.
CH: There's another example of women successfully advocating for change. Can you tell us about the Manti temple murals?
JR: A number of people, but women in particular, were banding together to save the murals in the Manti temple after it was announced that they would be removed from the temple. And these were murals that were done by a woman artist, Minerva Teichert, and so there was a particular grief at the thought of her artwork no longer being within the temple itself.
And so there was a pretty impressive demonstration of advocacy on the part of a lot of women who wrote and who were very vocal about how they wanted those murals to stay. And then the church did change its mind, essentially, and those murals have been restored. They remain in their original places in the temple. But the church didn't really give credit to any of that, particularly to the voices of women in helping to reverse that decision.
CH: What does that reveal about the tension between the church and advocate members?
JR: Well, I think that the church is in a rough position because it wants us to believe that every single policy change is inspired of God, and possibly even holy revelation. So when you do that, you either have to pretend that the other voices didn't exist, or develop a theology that acknowledges that revelation is not only a top-down process, but also a bottom-up process — that it is dialectic, right? The church hasn't done either of those things yet, so we'll see.
CH: Does the garment change reveal something more broadly about this moment of religion in America?
JR: Well, I think that the church is trying very hard and doing a good job, in many ways, with trying to accommodate beliefs and practices that some people may find difficult in the area that we're living in now.
You know, we are living in a time in the United States and certainly in Europe, where we have a rise of non-religious people, and there's a great secularization occurring broadly in society. And so it becomes more and more of an outlier to be religious — and that could be your dietary choices, your garment wearing, your church-going on Sundays. All of those become more and more different from what's going on in the broader society. And we have seen the church respond to this, for example, in making church two hours instead of three hours on a Sunday.
