Romney

[Donuthole]

I am fine with those. That isn't a garment cut though.

Go pick up a dri-luxe top and you'll see that the scoop doesn't go much lower, if any, than that v-neck (unless you keep it way past its useful life, but the same could be said for any under shirt). This is exactly the reason men in the 30-45 demographic cling to their crew necks--because they remember the nipple-busting scoops that their dads wore and vowed never to wear a scoop neck. So instead, they have nasty, dingy, crumpled crew-necks peeking out from beneath their t-shirts, polos, and button downs.

[scottie]

That doesn't change the fact that wearing a crew top under a button-down shirt with the top button undone is tacky.

Can I get a ruling on this, people? I don't wear garments, but I do wear white crew tops (never dingy -- I purchase new ones on a very regular basis, the Calvin Klein ones at Costco) under my button-down work shirts; I do it to protect my work shirts from armpit sweat.

[LA Ute]

So you don't think garments provide divine, supernatural or "magical" protection? Of course you do. Why is that difficult to own?

To me the individual stories of special physical protection are just that - individual stories. I see them just as I would any individual faith-promoting experience. I don't believe - and I'm pretty sure the church doesn't teach - that garments necessarily constitute armor against physical danger.

[UtahDan]

To me the individual stories of special physical protection are just that - individual stories. I see them just as I would any individual faith-promoting experience. I don't believe - and I'm pretty sure the church doesn't teach - that garments necessarily constitute armor against physical danger.

I don't think it has to be physical protection to be divine or supernatural. I think the promises associated with them have more to do with protection from Satan and temptation. But I have never heard it taught that this is strictly because they are a reminder, though clearly that is part of it. It always seemed clear to me that there was divine assistance or blessing of some kind happening there. This doesn't seem controversial to me, which is why I am surprised anyone would deny it.

[YOhio]

So you don't think garments provide divine, supernatural or "magical" protection? Of course you do. Why is that difficult to own?

Opinions and beliefs on the matter are varied enough that it's a bit unfair of you to automatically subscribe it to an individual member.

[Donuthole]

Can I get a ruling on this, people? I don't wear garments, but I do wear white crew tops (never dingy -- I purchase new ones on a very regular basis, the Calvin Klein ones at Costco) under my button-down work shirts; I do it to protect my work shirts from armpit sweat.

I think by doing this, you are definitely minimizing, if not nullifying, the tackiness. But why not just get v-neck undershirts? They would also protect from armpit sweat but they wouldn't show.

[Surfah]

I think by doing this, you are definitely minimizing, if not nullifying, the tackiness. But why not just get v-neck undershirts? They would also protect from armpit sweat but they wouldn't show.

Probably to keep that tuft of fur from poking out.

[UtahDan]

Opinions and beliefs on the matter are varied enough that it's a bit unfair of you to automatically subscribe it to an individual member.

Really? So some of the orthodox here don't think that wearing garments bring divine protection, at least from Satan and temptation? I'll back down if I'm wrong, I just thought this was very straight forward.

[LA Ute]

I don't think it has to be physical protection to be divine or supernatural. I think the promises associated with them have more to do with protection from Satan and temptation. But I have never heard it taught that this is strictly because they are a reminder, though clearly that is part of it. It always seemed clear to me that there was divine assistance or blessing of some kind happening there. This doesn't seem controversial to me, which is why I am surprised anyone would deny it.

Well, I know this much: If you wear garments with pleated pants, you can't count on protection.

Seriously, I don't deny that God can protect is any way he wants to. I just don't like the idea of ascribing supernatural power to things. We do that (the Liahona, the Uris and thummin, etc., to a certain extent) but it's really pretty limited, IMO.

[Flystripper]

Really? So some of the orthodox here don't think that wearing garments bring divine protection, at least from Satan and temptation? I'll back down if I'm wrong, I just thought this was very straight forward.

Certainly helps keep one morally clean. Garments would be an awkward disrobing with a no-mo and would be a buzz kill with an active mo. So yeah I would agree that they are a guard against temptation in that sense, but I never thought they had special protection beyond the practical protection described above.

I always viewed garments as symbolic reminders without any special properties beyond that. Isn't this what is taught?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think it has to be physical protection to be divine or supernatural. I think the promises associated with them have more to do with protection from Satan and temptation. But I have never heard it taught that this is strictly because they are a reminder, though clearly that is part of it. It always seemed clear to me that there was divine assistance or blessing of some kind happening there. This doesn't seem controversial to me, which is why I am surprised anyone would deny it.

This is a very odd argument you are making. This is what the article said:

That said, there are, within Mormon folklore, stories of garment-wearers receiving physical protection--being spared from injury in a car accident, for example--but this isn't part of official LDS doctrine, and it's not widely preached.

Seems like an accurate summary to me.

Also odd that you would bring up Willard Richards as an example. Yes, that is where much of the garment folklore started (JS and others removed their garments because of the heat), but referring to that episode as some kind of proof that there is a doctrinal basis to this is silly.

Did you previously believe that your garments would afford you some kind of magical protection?

[YOhio]

Really? So some of the orthodox here don't think that wearing garments bring divine protection, at least from Satan and temptation? I'll back down if I'm wrong, I just thought this was very straight forward.

I can only speak for myself, something which you might consider, and say it's never been my belief. I've always viewed them solely as a reminder of covenants I've made. Any "protection" I receive comes as a result of keeping those covenants, not from the garment itself.

[YOhio]

Dan Riehl is picking up steam on the Romney-Alinsky ties.

[RC Vikings]

Certainly helps keep one morally clean. Garments would be an awkward disrobing with a no-mo and would be a buzz kill with an active mo.

I find it interesting that someone would be screwing around yet would still be wearing their g's because of it being ingrained into their head.

[Katy Lied]

I'm have a practical approach, much like the flystripper and YOhio. Like wearing a crucifix, or a St. Christopher's medal, or a WWJD rubber bracelet. I think wearing a crucifix also helps to govern behavior, because one might refrain from committing public sins while wearing one, else risk a label of hypocrit.