My sophomore year at BYU, freshly off my mission, some friends invited me to hot springs somewhere in the Provo vicinity. (I didn’t end up going, so I have no idea where in the Provo vicinity these hot springs are.) As a freshly returned missionary, though, I had a question: should I wear my garments there, then change into my swimsuit? or should I change into my swimsuit at home and then head to the hot springs?
See, most of my time as an endowed member of the church, I’d been a missionary, and questions of when to change into a swimsuit hadn’t come up. I ended up asking my bishop; I have no memory at this point of what he said, but I assume he said to wear my swimsuit to the hot springs (that again, I didn’t end up going to).
So why a random BYU memory here? Well, a couple days ago, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Elder Hamilton of the Seventy spoke about garment-wearing at a stake conference in Elk Grove, California. And his statements, as reported, suggest that at least some church leaders are looking askance on how some members are wearing garments, and are possibly looking to shift the church’s policy on garments from a largely standards-based to a largely rule-based approach.
Based on the reporting, though, I’d propose that church leaders ask themselves a series of questions before making any such changes. In no particular order, I’d love to hear their answers to these questions:
Why focus solely on women?
According to an attendee of the stake conference, Elder Hamilton said that “too many younger women wear them mostly on Sundays and when attending the temple . . . rather than every day.” He also said that “many younger women are opting for ‘yoga pants’ during the week.”
Now, there are a couple possibilities here. One is that, in fact, women are more likely to wear garments less frequently than men. Another is that they are roughly equally likely, but church leaders are more likely to notice when women don’t wear garments.
But if women are more likely than men to wear garments less, maybe the problem is the garments themselves present problems to women that they don’t present to men. If that’s the case, perhaps rather than mandate that women wear garments more frequently, the church should redesign garments to take into account the problems women face.
If, on the other hand, it’s just a perception thing, then the focus on women looks even less justifiable. It looks like an attempt to control young women’s behavior, in a piece with telling Relief Society presidents that they can’t sit on the stand and other similar gender problems.
Either way, then, focusing on women strikes me as a bad substantive, a bad rhetorical, and a bad policy choice to make.
Is there only one correct way to wear garments?
In the meeting, Elder Hamilton asserted that there is “only one covenant path.”
I’m not a big fan of the “covenant path” metaphor. I don’t personally find that it provides any helpful illumination. But clearly a lot of people disagree with me, so let’s go with it. And let’s go with the idea that there is only one covenant path.
That still doesn’t tell us there is only one correct way to wear garments. In fact, it’s clear that there’s not (and that there’s broad variation in garment-wearing, at least on the margins). I don’t know of any endowed member of the church who would wear garments swimming or bathing. (There may be some, of course—I’m not in a position to say there’s literally no member who does, but I feel very comfortable saying that any who does is in the vast minority.) But what about the trip to the beach or swimming pool (or hot springs)?
Most of us don’t wear garments while we do at least some kinds of exercise. But where do we draw the line? Do we wear them running? biking? lifting weights? rock climbing? playing soccer? playing football? doing yoga? I suspect that the answer varies depending on the person.
How about doctors’ appointments?
So it’s clear that there are times when we wear garments and times when we don’t. It’s not clear what the dividing line between those times is, and, in fact, I suspect that many of us come to different conclusions.
Which is great! The point of wearing garments isn’t to wear garments; according to the church it’s “an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.” But the important thing is that inner commitment to follow the Savior. And part of how we follow the Savior is through making active decisions about what we need to do to follow Him.
Do we want to push members out?
Remember here we’re talking about active endowed members. And maybe you (meaning you, or meaning general authorities, or meaning the church itself) would prefer that active endowed members pretty much always wear garments.
So here’s the thing: for these purposes, we’ve basically got four groups of Mormons: (1) those who haven’t been endowed, (2) those who have been endowed, are active in the church, and wear their garments an “acceptable” amount, (3) those who have been endowed, are active in the church, and wear their garments an “unacceptable” amount, and (4) those who are endowed but are not active in the church (and presumably largely don’t wear garments, though I wouldn’t be shocked if some do).
By retrenching, the church may push some people from category (3) into category (2). But it also may push some people from category (3) into category (4).
Chances are both would happen. But is it worth losing otherwise active members of the church just to get some active members to wear their garments (which, again, are a symbol, not an end result) more frequently worth the cost? I’m skeptical that it is.
In the end, the church can set the policies that it wants. But I hope, before it looks to retrench, that leaders ask themselves why they want retrenchment, what benefits it would bring, and if those benefits are worth the costs.