Know Your Religion, Don’t Show It

Posted by in Featured, Mormonism | 48 comments

This post breaches a sensitive topic among Latter-day Saints. I will openly discuss the LDS garment, hopefully in a respectful way. This post spawned from a recent, lengthy discussion that I had with my wife. If you choose to continue reading, please do so with an open mind.

Before I even discuss the actual LDS garment, I want to discuss why they are worn:

“Garments are a symbolic gesture of the promises that Mormons have made to God. The garment is always worn under other clothing, next to the skin. In fact, for most people who wear it, the garment takes the place of regular underwear….It serves as a constant reminder of the covenants made during the temple endowment.”  (LDSChurchTemples.com)

While the garment means something different for everyone who wears it, in general it serves as a reminder of the promises and covenants made in the temple.

As I worked on the past revelation series for this blog regarding LDS temple work, I saw that many changes were due to practicality. This is especially true for the garment that participants are instructed to wear once they go through the temple. Before any changes were made, warnings were stated about changing the original garment: In 1906, Joseph F. Smith characterized any attempt, in the name of changing fashion trends, to modify the 1840s garment pattern, which he characterized as “sacred, unchanged, and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them” as a “grievous sin.” (“Editor’s Table”, Improvement Era 9)

President Joseph F. Smith emphasized the heavenly origin of the garment again stating:

“The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven, and the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them” (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 150).

Heber J. Grant – Nice Hat!

In 1923, just 17 years after this comment was made, the garment went through some major changes. President Heber J. Grant issued a letter regarding garment modifications: sleeves could end at the elbow; legs could be shortened to just below the knee; buttons could be used instead of strings; the collar was eliminated. More changes were made in the same year that shortened the sleeves and legs even more and also eliminated buttons (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 150).

President Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency explained some of the reasoning behind the changes to the garment, which included:

  • Freedom of movement
  • Cleanliness
  • Practicality (hard to do housework for women since they were always rolling up their sleeves)
  • Elimination of undesirable exposure of the garment, which frequently occurred through the wearing of present-day patterns of clothing (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 152-153).

Complaints were heard by the General Authorities:

The Flapper of the 1920s

“Encasing the lower limbs the old-style garment reaches to the ankles and is looked upon by young members as baggy, uncomfortable and ungainly.  The young of the gentler sex complained that to wear the old style with the new and finer hosiery gave the limbs a knotty appearance.  It was embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt.” (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 152-153)

…and the complaints were answered by the General Authorities:

“..somewhat reluctantly and with deference only because we have convinced ourselves that it will… obviate undesirable exposure of the garment which now so frequently occurs through the wearing of present-day patterns of clothing.  We feel sure that such a modification will greatly please many good women throughout the Church, and we have not been able to see that we are yielding any vital thing in this slight change” (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 152-153).

Do we have any of the same complaints today? Do we have undesirable exposure of the garment? Nod your head or shout amen if you have experienced or seen any of the following examples.

Women:

  • Short/petite women, due to the length of their garments, have to wear longer shorts compared to taller women.
  • While wearing a shirt that has a wider neckline, the garment is often exposed by the collarbone.
  • Petite women can’t wear cap sleeves without exposure of the garment because it is wide and slips down on the arm.
  • Any time a woman bends down, sits, or squats, the top waistband of the garment, if not more, is exposed.
  • Any time a woman reaches for something high her garment is exposed.
  • Pregnant women whose shirts are more fitting around the middle expose the navel marking in the garment.
  • Bigger women will have a bigger waist, and therefore a longer garment length.
  • Any form-fitting shirt will reveal the back embroidery of the garment through the shirt.
  • Any form-fitting pants will reveal the embroidery of the hemline of the garment (or just the hemline if there is no embroidery).
  • Any white dress shirt will reveal the embroidery around the neck and back.
  • The garment waistline is so skinny it digs into your skin.
  • When a woman wears a knee-length skirt that is not tight fitting she will have garment exposure when she walks.
  • Some tops have bigger arm openings causing exposure of the garment.
  • The garment waist is so uncomfortably high it has to be pushed and bunched down (or pulled up to the armpits).

Men:

  • Bottoms will crawl up having to pull the garment down almost every time you sit down.
  • The garment crawling up can make things uncomfy around the wedding tackle area.
  • In wearing a white dress shirt, you can see the markings through the shirt.
  • If you are wearing a thin shirt like a golf shirt, you can see the markings through the shirt.
  • Short men are left to wear longer shorts or their garments will be exposed at the bottom.
  • Bigger men will have a bigger waist and therefore longer length in the garment, usually resulting in exposure.
  • The garment bottom hemline appears when wearing most pants, especially when sitting with suit pants.
  • Sometimes the sleeve can be exposed when wearing a short sleeve.

Universal complaints:

  • Garments do not fit correctly.
  • Garments are not comfortable.
  • Garments are hot during summer months and tropical locations.
  • Garments are not attractive. (I know I’ll get some flack for this one, but there is something to be said about what you wear making you feel good about yourself or attractive. Maybe I have been watching too much “What Not to Wear” with my wife – don’t judge me!)

So what are we to do? Are we kind of like the saints in 1923? In 1979, the two-piece garment was made available and was welcomed with great enthusiasm. I can’t even imagine the fitting issues a one-piece would have. It seems that each change that has been made to the garment has been to promote a better fit and to adapt to the fashion styles of the time. My wife, who is fairly petite, would like to wear garments that actually fit her. She has no problems wearing garments, but finds it irritating that garments do not fit her body correctly and there are no options for her (trust me, the “options” at the distribution center are not options). A direct quote from her: “I would never go to a store and purposely buy something as ill-fitting as garments, no matter how inexpensive it was; but with garments, I don’t have any choice.” She, and I’m sure many others, would be more than willing to pay a little more money for something that was more comfortable and practical.

Some might say that garment changes or modifications would allow women and men to dress immodestly. Just kidding; they would say it would allow women to dress immodestly.  Is the garment there to force you into a modest dress code? For some, such as petite women, the answer is yes.  For tall women who can wear shorter shorts and skirts with garments, the answer is no.  How is that fair in regulating modesty? There seems to be some incongruency here.  And if the garment were a tool to enforce modesty, where is the free agency? I feel strongly that the garment is there to serve as a reminder of promises and covenants, not to enforce modesty.

I believe that the choice to wear the garment is a private, personal decision that one makes with God and no one else. This being the case, we should not make this choice public. But how can we do this? Should we wear baggy clothes that are long and cover the body? Should we wear colored shirts so the markings can’t be seen through a white shirt?

Is he Mormon? Don’t ask, don’t tell!

I was interested to find out that to avoid exposure of the garment, members in the military – men and women alike – send in any shirt, including shirts with their company logo on them, and the Church silk screens the markings on the inside of the shirt. Brilliant! Also they do this due to the heat in certain areas like Iraq.  They are allowed to wear just the garment as a normal shirt as the markings remain hidden and private. They can also wear a spandex type bottom. They are able to mark anything – any color, any style. Why do they do this? So the garment is not exposed. The private choice between God and them remains private when they are changing in front of other people and if someone else does their laundry.

Have you ever caught yourself looking for telltale signs that someone is wearing the garment? Why were you looking? Did you want to know if they were Mormon? Did you want to find out if they were living the covenants? Is this a good thing? I say unto you, nay!  In the scriptures it is always looked down on when something is publicly viewed to show worthiness. Matthew 6 reads:

Carl Bloch Sermon on the Mount

Carl Bloch Sermon on the Mount

“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:  That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly…

Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting.
Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.  But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.”

If wearing the garment is a private choice between God and the individual, then we need to keep it private. Today’s fashions leave the garment too exposed in many different ways and this needs to change.

Part 2 of this post we go over some possible solutions to the garment.

avatar

Born and raised in Northern California, Paul received his education at Ricks College and BYU with a BA in Spanish, minor in PE Coaching. Paul served his LDS mission during the years 94-96 in Rosario, Argentina. He now runs his own businesses from home in Utah County. He's married and has 4 boys. He is currently the ward cub master.

All posts by

48 Comments

  1. avatar
    Char / November 4, 2012

    I love the sensibility to what you wrote. I love clear sighted practicality and abhor the fear that some instill about the tiniest things in our religion. Heaven forbid that you love the lord and serve him in something reasonable, practical and comfortable. You make very good points in your scriptural references.
    I have laughingly said for years that It’s a wonder that Mormons reproduce when they have to see each other in them.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  2. avatar
    O / November 4, 2012

    I too am a petite woman and I am very frustrated at the lack of clothing I can choose from because of my garments. On top of that I live in the south where humidity is a killer! When I was pregnant with my youngest last year the church was actually OUT of petite maternity garments. I was told that the regular ones were no big deal and to just get those. Sure, for all those crazy tall girls, but not for someone like me where they fell BELOW my knees. We had record high temps that summer and heaven forbid I be able to wear some shorts to cool off. It made for a very uncomfortable pregnancy to say the least.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  3. avatar
    Jerilyn / November 4, 2012

    I remember being at BYU in the spring of 1990 when a whole bunch of girls got fired from Beehive Clothing for making garment bottoms super short (aka, mid-thigh) (quelle horreur!) for themselves. That said, I would love to see some changes in the garment. I’d like to be able to use the top much like men do—as an undershirt that can peek outside of my clothes that I can use for layering, similar to a shade shirt. I’m also a fan of having the marks tattooed on my person. I love the mental image of little old ladies and men in the temple wielding tattoo guns.

    I really hate the discussion going on about whether or not Ann Romney is wearing garments in some of the photographs that have been taken of her. We’re too caught up in the appearance and not the heart. (FYI: Still a hard-hearted liberal. Just in case someone thinks I have turned Republican with those remarks.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  4. avatar
    k / November 4, 2012

    Brilliant. I had a difficult time wearing garments for all of the above reasons. I tried to find any information i could about why God would ask us to wear something so specific when it made me so miserable. That’s when i found the same quote by Joseph F.Smith. It was devastating to read something so scathing towards the women of the church for wanting to modernize the garment. Everything went downhill from there.

    I can respect those who hold them sacred. But the styles themselves aren’t sacrosanct. At least they don’t have to be.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  5. avatar
    Greg / November 4, 2012

    Great piece. I secretly hope for change every conference. You covered all of my thoughts perfectly.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  6. avatar
    Jenni / November 5, 2012

    In the list of what we complain about: The maternity and nursing garments also seem to have been designed by people who have never been pregnant or breastfed. And the bust allowance in the garments are not different for differently busted women. They have ‘regular’ and ‘full bust’ and neither fits me. You know what I would love? Something with a bra built in… I appreciate the desire to keep the marks in the same spot, but please don’t add an extra layer where I’m already dealing with a bra. Just put the marks right on the bra, let us buy them by bra size, and then I think they’d fit a lot better!

    I have experience as a seamstress and I have actually altered my garments so that they fit properly. Before anyone freaks out, let me explain. :) When I was pregnant, rather than buy extra garments for just a few months, I simply rolled down the waistbands and wore them under my belly. After pregnancy, I realized I really loved the lower waist and so I continued rolling them down. After another couple of years, it hit me that I could just cut of the waistband and re-sew it a couple of inches lower, which is exactly what I did.
    I’m still as covered as ever, except now they fit more comfortably.

    Here is my theory: garment technology is about 10-15 years behind regular underwear technology. (Probably because it’s regulated by old men who have no idea how lovely things like microfiber and stretch lace are, and who have never had lady-curves and really don’t appreciate how badly garments DO NOT FIT the female shape.) So, as I said, I alter mine to fit mine. I see it as completely comparable to hemming a new pair of pants: I am adjusting them to make them fit me correctly (not to try to be immodest!).

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  7. avatar
    Michael Barker / November 5, 2012

    OK, I am going to be the second dude to comment and the first to express my issues.

    During long surgical cases in which I am seated, the bottoms crawl up my thighs and really squeeze my bits and pieces; to the point where they are aching. Because I am scrubbed in, I can’t just reach down and pull the legs of the garment bottoms down to take the pressure off. Immediatly after the case is done, in front of everyone, I grab the bottoms and slide them down.

    Now, certain fabrics are worse than others. Cotton bottoms are the worse. The mesh ones are better; they seem to stay down better and are thinner than the cotton so I don’t get the turnicate around my boys as often or as intensly as I use to with the cotton. It seems to me that it is because my leg hairs get intertwined in the mesh and help keep them down. Why do I think that? Because every-so-often the mesh will grab one of my dang leg hairs and pull – OUCH!!

    The remedy? Look at cycling shorts. They have a lot more panels to them and move with the body better. Also the higher-end cycling shorts have an elastic silicon rubber piece at the leg opening; this keeps the legs from crawling up while you are cycling. The church makes a spandex bottom, but it is too thick.

    Make a thiner spandex bottom with more panels and the silocon grip at the bottom, and BAM! Instent comfort. No junk squeezing.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  8. avatar
    Camille / November 5, 2012

    Paul Barker,

    Now you’ve gone and made me choke on the bacon I was eating! HAHAHAHAHA

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  9. avatar
    Rooshi / November 5, 2012

    Here are my thoughts: the church is struggling with retaining their members, especially young adults. One thing they’ve been doing recently to increase retention is to build identity among their members, hence “And I’m a Mormon.” One important thing about identiTY, naturally, is being able to identiFY. When you see a white tee poke out of arm holes, you know what it is. And you know that extra layer you see poking out the bottom of shorts ain’t for warmth. And to reinforce your brother’s point, practically the only way to adequately cover it all is to dress like a pentecostal on a cold day.

    My point is, the point of garments IS to be noticed… either in terms of the showing white or the sheets used to cover it up. If you can’t identify other and thus identify with them, both solidarity and identiTY drop. So I can see the church resisting changing the garment, maybe not for ^*these* reasons, but for their own, nonetheless. On the other hand, with people like your bro being more wiling to speak up about G’s not just in terms of style, but in the very OPTION of wearing them (it used to be a covenant, not a personal choice), the church might not want to force an all or nothing standard on garment wearing. So maybe they will bring in a few fashion consultants. Who knows? I just think watching the church change when it says it won’t fascinating, but not nearly as much as it is to watch members justify yesterday’s revealed word of god as today’s folk-doctrine.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
    • avatar
      Paul Barker / November 5, 2012

      Rooshi – Thanks for your comment. I don’t think there is ever good to show your underwear in public! You never promise to wear the Garment, you are instructed to wear the Garment as a reminder of the covenants you made. I’m not asking for an all or nothing, I am asking for more and better options. Yes they need to bring in some fashion consultants! And yes there is a difference between what is doctrine, policy and cultural folk doctrine. Policies and cultural will always change.

        (Quote)  (Reply)

      Reply
  10. avatar
    Garrett / November 5, 2012

    I have a very hard time wearing garments. I do not do well in heat…at all. Wearing garments literally burns me up when it gets anywhere over 75 degrees. When I go to the gym or play sports or anything similar in nature, the g’s come off. They are not supportive enough. They ride too much. And they are ridiculously goofy looking when sticking out of gym shorts. I want people to quit judging others for not wearing garments…I want members to quit looking for garment lines. I want members to worry about their own covenanypts and quit worrying about my covenants…and especially to quit worrying about my underwear. I don think there is any group of people that is more worried about others’ underwear than members of the Lds church

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
    • avatar
      Paul Barker / November 5, 2012

      Garrett, I was taught sport, sex, shower, surgery and swimming are good exceptions of not wearing the Garment. I was disappointed when I was told the mission rule of always wearing the Garment was in affect. Worst rule of all time in Argentina. Everyone was flashing white in the gym shorts and that was just dumb.

      We need to stop checking out other peep’s underwear!!!

        (Quote)  (Reply)

      Reply
  11. avatar
    Jenni / November 5, 2012

    Paul Barker,

    Yep, that was me in the podcast. :)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  12. avatar
    Alisha / November 6, 2012

    I learned something interesting recently about getting a better fit– I’ve always known there was a way to special order garments, but I thought it was just for people who were very large. Nope! I met one of the seamstresses. Her only job is making custom garments. My problem is with the thong-like seamline in women’s. she told me its no problem, a double seam like men’s bottoms, or no seam on the seat at all. My mind was a little blown. I am definitely going to try for a better fit. Also– thanks for mentioning the shoulders and being petite. Mine are always so droopy and it bugs.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
    • avatar
      Paul Barker / November 6, 2012

      I wonder if they change the length for short peeps

        (Quote)  (Reply)

      Reply
    • avatar
      Geoff Tice / November 6, 2012

      Alisha, thank you for your comment. I personally have never had an issue with the comfort of garments, so I haven’t had to think too much about this subject. But when I hear discussions about the fit of garments, I usually hear a comment like “It’s just a bunch of old white men that don’t know anything about clothing design.”

      In my personal experience, the church usually hires very competent and qualified professionals in all their operations (real estate, agriculture and livestock, financing, education, etc.). I would assume the same thing applies to Beehive Clothing. I really doubt that the faces you see on the screen during General Conference are dictating the cut and pattern of the garment. I am also pretty sure that the General Authorities are not oblivious to the complaints about how the garments fit (if anything, this is probably one complaint they hear most frequently). I would be very interested to find out more about the operations of Beehive Clothing. Unfortunatley, some people who have issues with how the garment fit/feel and have taken that point to become cynical about the temple ordinances or the General Authorities.

        (Quote)  (Reply)

      Reply
      • avatar
        Paul Barker / November 6, 2012

        I believe Geoff there is a committee that is assigned to different designs. I have come across some interesting research that I will post in my “solutions” post, hopefully coming up soon. It seems the committee has certain things that can’t be debated that laid out by the 12 or whomever is in charge of that committee. It is all very interesting. Most changes in the church usually comes from the members wanting a change. The delicate part is to not come across as apostate as you plead for a policy to change.

          (Quote)  (Reply)

        Reply
    • avatar
      Paul Barker / November 6, 2012

      I called the distribution and yes you can get measured for garments. The main rule was the garment bottom must lie on above the knee. Tall people win still if they buy a petite size have more choices in the apparel they wear.

        (Quote)  (Reply)

      Reply
  13. avatar
    MyrtleJoy / November 6, 2012

    When my mother-in-law lay dying, her family wanted her to be clothed in her garments as they felt it was what she wanted. We heard that there existed a special one-piece garment that was designed like a hospital gown, open down the back for ease of changing as well as the patient’s comfort. The only problem was that we had to get a letter signed by her bishop stating that she needed this special garment, and the process took several days. It was very distressing for her family to have to deal with this while also coping with her impending death. Why couldn’t we have just bought what we needed at Beehive Clothing, without the song and dance routine? What was the point? Are there people who would have bought garments that resembled a hospital patient’s gown without really needing them? It was a case of the garments mattering more than the person; compassion demanded better from the church in our family’s time of grief.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  14. avatar
    Mitch / November 7, 2012

    I’ve discovered how you can tell if a man wearing an undershirt is LDS or not. If the undershirt is grey, frayed at the sleeves and neck and the stitching is straining to keep from disintegrating, guaranteed that man is a Mormon. If the undershirt is crisp, clean, and white and delightsome, chances are it’s just a regular Joe with his Hanes.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
    • avatar
      Paul Barker / November 7, 2012

      Mitch thanks for your comment! Pretty sure the official color of the garment has turned grey! And thanks for throwing in white and delightsome! HA!

        (Quote)  (Reply)

      Reply
    • avatar
      Martie / November 21, 2012

      Oh, yes! Makes me sick! They turn grey so fast and I don’t overload the washer; there’s only two of us in the house. I no longer wearing them but DH does and I replace them every few months; I can’t stand grey undies. He never wears them out; they get replaced because of greying not wearing out.

        (Quote)  (Reply)

      Reply
  15. avatar
    Brent / November 7, 2012

    The thick of thin things.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  16. avatar
    Paul Barker / November 7, 2012

    We are going to have a follow up post on this subject. It has been by far the most viewed post we have ever done. With the post we had some wonderful feed back and hopefully the next post will find some solutions to what the post presents.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  17. avatar
    Dan / November 7, 2012

    I found your blog by accident and this was the first post I read. I think you did a great job addressing some of the issues we face with respect to the wearing of Garments. The main problem I have is with the quality of the fabric itself. I believe the Garment to be a very special article of clothing. We should respect it. As such, it really bothers me that the Garments fade so easily. I also hate how the crew neck tops fold over and look so bad after just a few washings, or how they stretch out and lay all lopsided around the neck. If companies like Hanes and Under Armor can figure out how to make a quality product, then Beehive Clothing should be able to do the same. I feel like those “No More Bacon Neck” commercials from a couple years back were speaking directly to me! If are Garments are to be treated as sacred, then I think the same thought should go into how they are manufactured and more importantly, the materials used. I would gladly pay more for a better product. I hate it when I can “spot the Mormon in the room” by their low quality undergarments! We should all care more about something designed to be a reminder of sacred things.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  18. avatar
    Jonathan Stonely / November 13, 2012

    I’ve only had minor fitting problems with the “G’s” but I’m a regular shaped guy. I really feel for the gals. I started to get tired of my 100% cotton tops aging too fast, and I wanted a v-neck. So I made them. My rationale? What did the saints do before Beehive Clothing? They made them. I also came across a pair of my grandfathers all wool one piece thermal garments from sears. I’m sure they were for working on his cold Idaho farm, and I’m sure he or his wife made them. Banana Republic white v-neck T. The best garment top I have ever made/worn.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  19. avatar
    Martie / November 21, 2012

    Right, Paul, it’s not a covenant. Never mind that we’re now told that it is, it’s still not. Covenants made in the temple are very clearly noted.

    Paul Barker,

    Jonathan Stonely,

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  20. avatar
    Martie / November 21, 2012

    MyrtleJoy,

    Oh, yes, the garment matters far more than the individual, far more, and that’s from the very top.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  21. avatar
    Martie / November 21, 2012

    Alisha,

    I’ve had some special order garments and they didn’t fit. To be fair to BC, they were willing to make others to replace those. I even went to the manufacturing plant and they measured me. But we were not speaking the same language so the next set didn’t fit any better.

    This actually happened twice. The first time I wanted petite bottoms with longer legs. Yes, I was that way at one time. I needed the short rise but wanted the legs down to my knee, like I thought they should be. When they came in, instead of longer, they were shorter–like mid-thigh. I’d been told that they couldn’t be exchanged so i just kept them. It wasn’t until I was advised to have tops made to fit and mentioned the problems I’d had before that I was told that I should have brought them back. Well, I changed my views on “to the knee” and wore the short garments with shorts!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  22. avatar
    anon / December 5, 2012

    I don’t think the purpose of garments is to make the wearer feel angry or ugly, so what am I doing wrong?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply
  23. avatar
    Hagoth / January 7, 2013

    Thank you for the thougtful and respectful analysis. I’m a new visitor to the site and have appreciated much of it. Testing your statement on members of the military being able to have the Church mark their military and non-military clothes alike with silk screen on the inside, I looked at the readily available online order form. It appears that this service is not available for non-military clothes owned by military members. Also, the clothing center chooses whether to silk screen or whether to sew the alterations.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>